Air Plan Approval; Missouri and Kansas; Determination of Attainment for the Jackson County, Missouri 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area and Redesignation of the Wyandotte County, Kansas Unclassifiable Area to Attainment/Unclassifiable, 20896-20908 [2020-07143]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
20896
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register of April 2, 2020, the
following corrections are made:
1. On page 18638, in the first column,
in the section entitled ‘‘Postal Mail,
Commercial Delivery, or Hand
Delivery,’’ remove ‘‘Scott Filter’’ and
add in its place ‘‘Gregory Martin’’.
2. On page 18638, in the second
column, in the section entitled FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, remove
‘‘Scott Filter at (202) 453–7249 or
Scott.Filter@ed.gov’’ and add in its place
‘‘Gregory Martin at (202) 453–7535 or
gregory.martin@ed.gov.’’
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001, et
seq.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document
and a copy of the application package in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc) on
request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. You may access the official
edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations at:
www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can
view this document, as well as all other
documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Portable Document Format
(PDF). To use PDF you must have
Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Robert L. King,
Assistant Secretary for the Office of
Postsecondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2020–07893 Filed 4–14–20; 8:45 am]
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R07–OAR–2020–0155; FRL–10007–
62–Region 7]
Air Plan Approval; Missouri and
Kansas; Determination of Attainment
for the Jackson County, Missouri 1Hour Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment
Area and Redesignation of the
Wyandotte County, Kansas
Unclassifiable Area to Attainment/
Unclassifiable
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to determine
that the Jackson County, Missouri 1hour (1-hr) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) Nonattainment Area has
attained the NAAQS and to redesignate
the Wyandotte County, Kansas 1-hr SO2
NAAQS Unclassifiable Area as
Attainment/Unclassifiable. Both
proposed decisions are based on air
quality monitoring and modeling data.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 15, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
OAR–2020–0155 to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the Docket ID No. for this
rulemaking. Comments received will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov/, including any
personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on sending
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Written Comments’’ heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tracey Casburn, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air
Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219;
telephone number (913) 551–7016;
email address casburn.tracey@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
SUMMARY:
Table of Contents
I. Written Comments
II. What action is the EPA proposing?
III. What is the background of this action?
A. Designations
B. Clean Data Policy
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Apr 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
C. How does a nonattainment area achieve
‘‘Clean Data’’ for the 2010 1-hr primary
SO2 NAAQS?
D. What are the criteria to be redesignated
from unclassifiable to attainment/
unclassifiable?
E. What information did Missouri provide
to the EPA to demonstrate that the
jackson county area has attained the
NAAQS?
F. What information did Kansas provide to
the EPA to demonstrate that the
Wyandotte County area should be
redesignated from unclassifiable to
attainment/unclassifiable?
G. What is the EPA’s rationale for
proposing this action?
i. Jackson County, Missouri
ii. Wyandotte County, Kansas
IV. What is the EPA’s analysis of the air
quality monitoring and modeling data?
A. Monitoring Data
B. Jackson County Clean Data Modeling
i. Meteorological Data
ii. Background Concentration
iii. Source Characteristics
iv. Emissions Data
v. Results
C. Wyandotte County Redesignation
Modeling
i. Meteorological Data
ii. Background Concentration
iii. Source Characteristics
iv. Emissions Data
v. Connection to the Jackson County Clean
Data Modeling
vi. Results
V. When promulgated, what are the effects of
this action?
A. Jackson County, Missouri
B. Wyandotte County, Kansas
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Written Comments
Submit your comments, identified by
Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2020–
0155, at https://www.regulations.gov.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
II. What action is the EPA proposing?
The EPA is proposing to determine
that the Jackson County 2010 1-hr
primary SO2 nonattainment area (hereby
referred to as the ‘‘Jackson County
area’’), in Missouri, has attained the
2010 1-hr primary SO2 NAAQS.1 This
proposed determination of attainment is
based on a May 2018 request (later
supplemented) from the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources
(MoDNR) asking the EPA to consider
complete, quality assured, and certified
ambient air monitoring data from the
2015–2017 monitoring period and make
a determination that the area has
attained the 2010 1-hr primary SO2
NAAQS.2 3
The EPA is also proposing to
redesignate the Wyandotte County,
Kansas 1-hr SO2 NAAQS unclassifiable
area (hereinafter referred to as the
‘‘Wyandotte County area’’) to
attainment/unclassifiable based on a
January 2017 request from the Kansas
Department of Health and Environment
(KDHE).4 The EPA’s proposed
1 In accordance with appendix T to 40 CFR part
50, the 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS is met at an
ambient air quality monitoring site when the valid
1-hour primary standard design value is less than
or equal to 75 parts per billion (ppb). 40 CFR
50.17(b).
2 In accordance with appendix T to 40 CFR part
50, a 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS design value is
valid if it encompasses three consecutive calendar
years of complete data. A year meets data
completeness requirements when all 4 quarters are
complete. A quarter is complete when at least 75
percent of the sampling days for each quarter have
complete data. A sampling day has complete data
if 75 percent of the hourly concentration values,
including state-flagged data affected by exceptional
events which have been approved for exclusion by
the Administrator, are reported.
3 Monitoring data must be reported, quality
assured, and certified in accordance with the
requirements set forth in 40 CFR part 58.
4 Designations for the 2010 1-hr SO NAAQS
2
occurred/will occur in four phases, often referred to
as ‘‘Rounds’’. During Round 2 of the designations
process, the EPA used the designation category
‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ for areas with air
quality monitoring or modeling data demonstrating
attainment and for areas for which such data
weren’t available but for which the EPA had reason
to believe the areas were likely attainment and had
not been determined to be contributing to nearby
violations (see 81 FR 45039, July 12, 2016, page
45041 footnote 3). For Round 3 of the designations
process the EPA used the designations category of
‘‘attainment/unclassifiable’’ instead of
‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’. The EPA noted that
the inversion of the order of the words ‘‘attainment’’
and ‘‘unclassifiable’’ in the amended term
‘‘attainment/unclassifiable’’ had no consequence
itself, and that there were no regulatory
consequences of the change in, or clarified
interpretation of, the terminology applied to the
areas to which the terms are applied. For
consistency, the EPA also inverted the order of
‘‘attainment’’ and ‘‘unclassifiable’’ for areas
previously designated in Round 2 (81 FR 45039,
July 12, 2016, and 81 FR 89870, December 13,
2016). The re-ordering of the terms had no
regulatory consequence and did not revisit the
determinations made in Round 2 for these areas.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Apr 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
redesignation of the Wyandotte County
area is based on air quality dispersion
modeling submitted by the KDHE and
supplemented by modeling analysis
from the MoDNR for the Jackson County
area. The relationship between the
MoDNR’s modeling analysis and the
Wyandotte County area is explained in
more detail in the ‘‘What is the EPA’s
Analysis of the Information Submitted
by the States?’’ and ‘‘Connection to the
Jackson County Clean Data Modeling’’
sections of this document.
The EPA has made the monitoring
and modeling data available in the
docket to this rulemaking through
www.regulations.gov.
III. What is the background of this
action?
A. Designations
On June 2, 2010, the EPA established
a health-based 1-hour primary SO2
NAAQS at 75 ppb.5 Upon promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS, section
107(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
requires the EPA to designate any area
that does not meet (or that contributes
to ambient air quality in a nearby area
that does not meet) the NAAQS as
nonattainment.
In our final designations published on
August 5, 2013, also known as Round 1
of the 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQS
designations process, the EPA
designated a portion of Jackson County,
Missouri, as nonattainment for the 2010
1-hr primary SO2 NAAQS, effective
October 4, 2013.6 7 The designation was
based on 2009–2011 monitoring data
from the Troost monitor in Kansas City,
Missouri, which monitored violations of
the standard (see section IV. of this
document for additional monitoring
information). The effective date of the
nonattainment designation was October
4, 2013. The CAA establishes that areas
designated as nonattainment must attain
the standard no later than five years
from the date of designation (i.e., by
October 4, 2018). The MoDNR was also
required to submit a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the
nonattainment area to the EPA that
meets the requirements of CAA sections
110, 172(c) and 191–192 within 18
The EPA found the change was consistent with
Congress’ definition of ‘‘attainment area’’ in CAA
section 107(d)(1)(A)(ii) (see 83 FR 1098, January 9,
2018, page 1099).
5 See 75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010.
6 See 78 FR 47191, August 5, 2013, codified at 40
CFR 81.326.
7 There are four rounds of designations for the
2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQS. Round 1 was completed in
August 2013. Round 2 was completed in July and
December 2016. Round 3 was completed in January
2018. Round 4 is to be signed by the Administrator
no later than December 31, 2020.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20897
months following the October 4, 2013,
effective date of designation (i.e., by
April 4, 2015). The MoDNR submitted
the ‘‘Nonattainment Area Plan for the
2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide National
Ambient Air Quality Standard—Jackson
County Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment
Area’’ on October 16, 2015. The MoDNR
withdrew the attainment plan, except
for the baseline emissions inventory,
from the EPA’s consideration and
review for action on June 6, 2018.8
In our final designations published on
July 12, 2016, also known as Round 2
of the 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQS
designations process, the EPA
designated the Wyandotte County area
as unclassifiable. The unclassifiable
designation was based on information
the KDHE provided to the EPA. The
KDHE air dispersion modeling analyses
indicated modeled compliance with the
NAAQS. However, the modeling
analyses included emission rates for
sources in Missouri that weren’t
reflective of actual emissions or the
sources’ federally enforceable allowable
emissions at the time of designation.9
Based on this information, the EPA
determined that it did not have enough
information demonstrating whether the
Wyandotte County Area was or was not
meeting the 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQS or
its impacts on the Jackson County area.
B. Clean Data Policy
Where states request a clean data
determination of a designated SO2
NAAQS nonattainment area, the EPA
will determine whether an area has
attained the NAAQS based on air
quality monitoring data (when
available) and air quality dispersion
modeling information for the affected
area as necessary. The EPA issued
‘‘Clean Data’’ policy memoranda for SO2
and other NAAQS describing suspended
attainment planning requirements for
nonattainment areas that are attaining
the NAAQS, but have not yet been
redesignated to attainment.10 11
8 See 84 FR 3703 (February 13, 2019). The EPA
published a fnal rulemaking in the Federal Register
approving the MoDNR’s 172(c)(3) baseline year
inventory for the Jackson County area.
9 The submittal also indicated that a previously
significant source of SO2, the Kansas Board of
Public Utilities-Quindaro location, did not need to
be included in the supporting modeling because the
facility switched to natural gas combustion in its
boilers in 2015. The operating permit for the
Quindaro facility is provided in the docket to this
rulemaking.
10 See, e.g., Memorandum of December 14, 2004,
from Steve Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards to the EPA Air Division
Directors, ‘‘Clean Data Policy for the Fine Particle
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.’’ This
document is available at: https://www.epa.gov/
pmdesignations/guidance.htm.
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
Continued
15APP1
20898
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Additionally, the EPA has issued
national rulemakings that have codified
this policy for ozone and fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.12
Under the Clean Data Policy, the EPA
interprets the requirements of the CAA
that are specifically designed to help an
area achieve attainment, such as
attainment demonstrations and
implementation of reasonably available
control measures (including reasonably
available control technology),
reasonable further progress (RFP)
demonstrations, and contingency
measures, to be suspended as long as air
quality continues to meet the standard.
In the memorandum of April 23,
2014, from Steve Page, Director, EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards to the EPA Air Division
Directors ‘‘Guidance for 1-hr SO2
Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions’’
(2014 SO2 Guidance), the EPA
explained its intention to extend the
Clean Data Policy to 1-hour SO2
nonattainment areas that attained the
standard. As noted therein, the legal
bases set forth in the various guidance
documents and regulations establishing
the Clean Data Policy for other
pollutants are equally pertinent to all
NAAQS.13 This proposed rule is also
consistent with prior actions of the EPA
applying the Clean Data Policy to two
other nonattainment areas under the
2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQS.14
Clean data determinations are not
redesignations from nonattainment to
attainment. For the EPA to redesignate
a nonattainment area to attainment, a
state must submit and receive full
approval of a redesignation request that
satisfies all of the statutory criteria for
redesignation to attainment, including a
demonstration that the improvement in
the area’s air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions;
have a fully approved SIP that meets all
of the applicable requirements under
CAA section 110 and CAA part D; and
have a fully approved maintenance
plan.
C. How does a nonattainment area
achieve ‘‘Clean Data’’ for the 2010 1-hr
primary SO2 NAAQS?
Generally, the EPA relies on ambient
air quality monitoring data alone in
order to make determinations of
attainment for areas designated
nonattainment for a NAAQS. However,
given the Agency’s historical approach
toward SO2, the source-specific nature
of SO2 emissions, and the localized
effect of those emissions, in the
preamble to the 2010 1-hr primary SO2
NAAQS rulemaking, the EPA stated that
it did not expect to rely solely on
monitored air quality data in all areas
when determining if an area has
attained the 2010 1-hr primary SO2
NAAQS (75 FR 35551, June 22, 2010).
As the EPA noted in the preamble, in
order for the EPA to determine that an
area is attaining the 2010 1-hr primary
SO2 NAAQS, dispersion modeling may
be needed to show that there are no
violating receptors even if a monitoring
site showed no violations.15 This was
because, as the EPA explained in the
preamble, the Agency did not expect
that most existing SO2 monitors were
well sited to record maximum 1-hour
ambient SO2 concentrations under the
new NAAQS. The 2014 SO2 Guidance
states that, for a nonattainment area that
was designated based on air quality
monitoring data to be determined as
attaining the NAAQS, the state would
need to meet a series of criteria. First,
the state would need to demonstrate
that the area is meeting the standard
based on three consecutive calendar
years of air quality monitoring that is
complete and quality-assured
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
15 As
11 The memorandum of April 23, 2014, from
Steve Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards to the EPA Air Division
Directors ‘‘Guidance for 1-hr SO2 Nonattainment
Area SIP Submissions’’ provides guidance for the
application of the clean data policy to the 2010 1hr primary SO2 NAAQS. This document is available
at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201606/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_
sip.pdf.
12 See, e.g., 81 FR 58010, 81 FR 58127–81 FR
58129 (August 24, 2016) (promulgating 40 CFR
51.1015); 80 FR 12264, 80 FR 12296 (promulgating
51.1118). See also 70 FR 71612, 70 FR 71664–70 FR
71646 (November 29, 2005); 72 FR 20585, 72 FR
20603–72 FR 20605 (April 25, 2007).
13 See court cases upholding legal basis for the
EPA’s Clean Data Determination Policy, NRDC v.
EPA, 571 F.3d at 1258–61 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra
Club v. EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); Latino
Issues Forum v. EPA, 315 Fed. App. 651, 652 (9th
Cir. 2009).
14 82 FR 13227 (March 10, 2016) and 81 FR 28718
(May 10, 2016).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Apr 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
noted in the preamble to the 2010 1-hr
primary SO2 NAAQS (75 FR 35551, June 22 2010),
this has been the EPA’s general position throughout
the history of implementation of the SO2 NAAQS
program. See, e.g., ‘‘Air Quality Control Regions,
Criteria, and Control techniques; Attainment Status
Designations,’’ 43 FR 40412, 43 FR 40415–43 FR
40416 (September 11, 1978); ‘‘Air Quality Control
Regions, Criteria, and Control Techniques,’’ 43 FR
45993, 43 FR 46000–43 FR 46002 (October 5, 1978);
‘‘Air Quality Implementation Plans: State
Implementation Plans; General Preamble,’’ 57 FR
13498, 57 FR 13545, 57 FR 13547–57 FR 13557, 57
FR 13548 (April 16, 1992); ‘‘Approval and
Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Call
for Sulfur Dioxide SIP Revisions for Billings/Laurel,
MT,’’ 58 FR 41430 (August 4, 1993); ‘‘Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio,’’
59 FR 12886, 59 FR 12887 (March 18, 1994);
‘‘Ambient Air Quality Standards, National and
Implementation Plans for Sulfur Oxides (Sulfur
Dioxide),’’ 60 FR 12492, 60 FR 12494–60 FR 12495
(March 7, 1995); ‘‘Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Approval and Promulgation: Various States:
Montana,’’ 67 FR 22167, 67 FR 22170–67 FR 22171,
67 FR 22183–67 FR 22887 (May 2, 2002).
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(consistent with 40 CFR part 58
requirements). Second, the state would
need to either (1) provide modeling of
the most recent three years of actual
emissions for the area or (2) provide a
demonstration that the affected
monitor(s) is or are in the area of
maximum concentration. As explained
in more detail in section (d) below, the
EPA finds that it is permissible to
substitute current source-specific
federally enforceable and in effect
allowable emissions for actual
emissions for the purpose of
demonstrating (1) above as long as
certain requirements are met.
If a demonstration shows that the
monitor(s) is or are in the area of
maximum concentration, the EPA finds
that it may be appropriate to determine
that the nonattainment area is attaining
the standard based on monitoring data
alone.
The 2014 SO2 Guidance states that,
when air agencies provide monitoring
and/or modeling to support clean data
determinations, the monitoring data
provided by the state should follow the
EPA’s ‘‘SO2 NAAQS Designations
Source-Oriented Monitoring Technical
Assistance Document’’ (SO2 Monitoring
TAD) and the modeling provided by the
state should follow the EPA’s ‘‘SO2
NAAQS Designations Modeling
Technical Assistance Document’’ (SO2
Modeling TAD).16 The SO2 Modeling
TAD outlines modeling approaches for
characterizing air quality under the
2010 SO2 NAAQS for designations. In
the SO2 Modeling TAD, the EPA
recommends using a minimum of the
most recent three years of actual
emissions data, and concurrent
meteorological data, so that the
modeling better simulates what an
ambient air monitor would observe.
D. What are the criteria to be
redesignated from unclassifiable to
attainment/unclassifiable?
Section 107(d)(3) of the CAA provides
the framework for changing the area
designations for any NAAQS pollutant.
16 The EPA released earlier versions, December
and May 2013, of both the modeling and monitoring
TADs, as well as an earlier February 2016 version
of the modeling TAD. The February 2016 version
of the ‘‘SO2 NAAQS Designations Source-Oriented
Monitoring Draft Technical Assistance Document,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air
Quality Assessment Division’’, can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201606/documents/so2monitoringtad.pdf. The August
2016 version of the ‘‘SO2 NAAQS Designations
Modeling Technical Assistance Document, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality
Assessment Division’’, can be found at https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/
documents/so2modelingtad.pdf. The December
2013 versions of the documents can be found in the
docket to this rulemaking.
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Section 107(d)(3)(A) provides that the
Administrator may notify the Governor
of any state that the designation of an
area should be revised ‘‘on the basis of
air quality data, planning and control
considerations, or any other air qualityrelated considerations the Administrator
deems appropriate.’’ The Act further
provides in section 107(d)(3)(D) that
even if the Administrator has not
notified a state Governor that a
designation should be revised, the
Governor of any state may, on the
Governor’s own motion, submit a
request to revise the designation of any
area, and the Administrator must
approve or deny the request.
When approving or denying a request
to redesignate an area, the EPA bases its
decision on the air quality data for the
area as well as the considerations
provided under section 107(d)(3)(A).17
In keeping with section 107(d)(1)(A),
areas that are redesignated to
attainment/unclassifiable must meet the
requirements for attainment areas and
thus must meet the relevant NAAQS. In
addition, the area must not contribute to
ambient air quality in a nearby area that
does not meet the NAAQS.
For designations, the SO2 Modeling
TAD indicates that it is acceptable to
use federally enforceable and in effect
allowable emission rates instead of
actual emission rates. Although past
actual emissions could have been higher
than those under the most recent
allowable rate, the SO2 Modeling TAD
reflects the EPA’s belief that it is
reasonable to account for any lower
allowable limits currently federally
enforceable and in effect when
determining if an area is attaining the
NAAQS. In addition, the SO2 Modeling
TAD indicates that, where an allowable
emissions limit has been lowered during
the relevant three-year period (such as
through the implementation of
emissions controls), the air agency may
rely on the new federally enforceable
and in effect limit in demonstrating that
the modeled limit assures attainment. In
this fashion, the most recent permitted
or potential to emit rate should be used
along with a minimum of the most
recent three years of meteorological
data.18
The EPA finds that modeling a mix of
current allowable emissions and actual
emissions would be consistent with the
SO2 Modeling TAD for designations if
the same type of emissions is used for
17 While CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) also lists
specific requirements for redesignations, those
requirements apply to redesignations of
nonattainment areas to attainment and, therefore,
are not applicable here.
18 See page 10 of the August 2016 SO Modeling
2
TAD.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Apr 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
each source for all three years. For
instance, if a state decided to use
current federally enforceable and in
effect allowables for a facility in a
modeling analysis, the state would need
to use current allowables for all three
years of the analysis for that facility.
The state would not necessarily need to
use current allowables for the other
sources in the analysis (i.e., actuals
would be permissible for all three years
for other sources in the area). The EPA
finds this kind of analysis is sufficient
for clean data determinations, which,
similar to designations, use the analysis
to determine whether the area is
currently meeting the NAAQS. We also
believe that this analysis can be used for
purposes of a redesignation of an area
from unclassifiable to attainment/
unclassifiable, where the inquiry is also
whether the area is factually attaining
the NAAQS. Such redesignations are
functionally similar to initial
designations and are not subject to the
requirements of CAA section
107(d)(3)(E), which require attainment
to be due to permanent and enforceable
measures and which require a
demonstration that the area will
maintain the NAAQS for ten years. Per
the 2014 SO2 Guidance, in
redesignations of nonattainment areas to
attainment, which are subject to the
requirements of CAA section
107(d)(3)(E), states will be expected to
use federally enforceable and in effect
allowable emissions in air quality
modeling.
The EPA recognizes that its 2014 SO2
Guidance does not on its face suggest
that modeling allowable emissions or a
mix of allowable and actual emissions
would be an acceptable alternative to
modeling actual emissions in the clean
data determination or redesignation of
an area from unclassifiable to
attainment/unclassifiable contexts.
However, the Agency considers it to
have been an oversight on its part not
to have addressed this alternative
possibility in the 2014 SO2 Guidance, as
the Agency clearly has endorsed the use
of both actual emissions and allowable
emissions in the SO2 Modeling TAD in
general and in the recent rounds of area
designations under the SO2 NAAQS, in
contexts where, as here, the Agency is
making a factual judgment about
whether an area has attained the
NAAQS. Moreover, the 2014 guidance
also suggests that modeling of allowable
emissions, combined with other
information, could also be used to
determine whether, after the attainment
deadline has passed, areas in fact timely
attained the NAAQS under CAA section
179. Therefore, although the SO2
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20899
Nonattainment Area Guidance was
silent on using allowable emissions in
the clean data determination and
redesignations of an area from
unclassifiable to attainment/
unclassifiable contexts, the EPA finds
that it is not inconsistent with the
guidance to endorse that practice now,
provided the allowables-based modeling
is conducted appropriately pursuant to
the SO2 Modeling TAD and the code of
federal regulations at 40 CFR part 51,
appendix W—Guideline on Air Quality
Models (hereafter referred to as
‘‘appendix W’’) and regulations
governing stack heights and dispersion
techniques at 40 CFR 51.100 and 40 CFR
51.118 when applicable.
E. What information did Missouri
provide to the EPA to demonstrate that
the Jackson County area has attained
the NAAQS?
On May 4, 2018, the MoDNR
submitted a request asking the EPA to
determine that the nonattainment area
attained the 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQS per
the EPA’s Clean Data Policy. The
request included three years of
complete, quality assured, and certified
ambient air monitoring data from the
2015–2017 monitoring period; the
design value (dv) for 2015–2017 was 57
ppb. In a response letter, dated
November 13, 2018, the EPA stated that,
because the request did not include a
modeling demonstration showing
attainment utilizing the most recent
three years of actual emissions or a
demonstration that the monitor was
located in the area of maximum
concentration for the nonattainment
area, the state’s request did not contain
the necessary supporting information as
outlined in the EPA’s 2014 SO2
Guidance. In an emailed letter dated
March 1, 2019, the state provided
modeling of the most recent three years
of actual emissions (2016–2018) for the
nonattainment area. However, the EPA
verbally expressed concern to the
MoDNR regarding data used to derive
the background concentration in the
modeling analysis.19 The MoDNR
responded via email with an update to
its modeling analysis.20 On April 24,
19 Essentially, the MoDNR estimated days in 2016
and 2017 when a primary facility in the
nonattainment area (Veolia) was burning coal in
conjunction with monitored values at the design
value monitor (Troost) instead of providing the
actual days when the facility was burning coal.
Additionally, the EPA had concerns with the
background concentration of 13 parts per billion as
described in the analysis and the list of sources
included with actual emissions.
20 The MoDNR updated the background
concentration analysis to include actual days (not
estimated days) that Veolia was burning coal in
2016 and 2017.
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
20900
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
2019, via email, the MoDNR submitted
an explanation of its interpretations of
regulations and guidance, in particular
its interpretations of appendix W and
guidance in regard to determining
background concentrations and which
sources needed to be included in the
clean data determination modeling
analysis. The EPA continued to provide
guidance to the MoDNR regarding
background concentration analysis and
sources to include in the model. On
June 19, 2019, via email, the MoDNR
submitted a revised modeling
demonstration (hereafter referred to as
the Jackson County clean data
determination modeling) to support its
request that the EPA determine the
Jackson County area has attained the
2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQS. In the Jackson
County clean data determination
modeling, the State adjusted its
background concentration and included
additional sources outside of the area in
the model using actual emissions. The
MoDNR submitted a correction to its
June 19, 2019 modeling files on
February 26, 2020. The correction
ensured that the modeling files were
reflective of the narrative description of
how the MoDNR calculated and
modeled hourly emission rates for
sources that did not have Continuous
Emissions Monitoring Systems
(CEMS).21 The EPA is proposing to
determine that the Jackson County area
has attained the NAAQS based on its
review of the MoDNR’s June 19, 2019,
Jackson County clean data
determination modeling submittal and
the February 2020 correction along with
the monitored ambient air data.
F. What information did Kansas provide
to the EPA to demonstrate that the
Wyandotte County area should be
redesignated from unclassifiable to
attainment/unclassifiable?
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
On September 17, 2015, the KDHE
provided an air dispersion modeling
analysis that demonstrated that the
Wyandotte County Area was in
attainment of the 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQS
as part of its area designation
recommendations for the Round 2
designations process.22 23 During the
21 As previously mentioned, the MoDNR
submitted modeling on February 24, 2020 to correct
the modeled actual emissions at three sources
(Audubon Materials, Blue River Treatment Plant
and KCPL Northeast Station). The February 24,
2020 modeling did not change the maximum
modeled results from the June 19, 2019 modeling
submittal. The February 2020 correction modeling
data is included in the docket to this rulemaking.
22 The modeling was performed by Trinity
Consultants for the Board of Public Utilities
utilizing the December 2013 version of the
Modeling TAD.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Apr 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
public comment period for the proposed
designations, the EPA received revised
modeling from Kansas City Board of
Public Utilities (BPU) (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘‘BPU March 2016
modeling’’) for the Wyandotte County
area.24 In its January 2017 Round 3
designations boundary recommendation
submittal, the KDHE recommended that
the EPA designate the Wyandotte
County area as ‘‘unclassifiable/
attainment’’ (we have already discussed
the change in classification to
‘‘attainment/unclassifiable’’ in the
‘‘What Action is the EPA Proposing?’’
section of this document). Because the
area was already designated in Round 2,
the EPA had no obligation to consider
the KDHE’s recommendation for the
Wyandotte County area at that time and
instead said that it would consider the
KDHE’s request for redesignation in a
separate action.25 The KDHE
resubmitted the BPU March 2016
modeling to the EPA in January 2017 as
part of its redesignation request for the
Wyandotte County area. The EPA is
proposing to redesignate the Wyandotte
County area based on the BPU March
2016 modeling and the MoDNR’s
Jackson County area clean data
determination modeling (with the
February 2020 correction). The BPU
March 2016 modeling and the MoDNR’s
June 19, 2019, Jackson County clean
data determination modeling (and the
February 2020 correction) are described
in more detail in ‘‘What is the EPA’s
Rationale for Proposing this Action?’’
section of this document.
G. What is the EPA’s rationale for
proposing this action?
i. Jackson County, Missouri
The EPA is proposing to issue a
determination of attainment for the
Jackson County area based on the area’s
2016–2018 monitoring data at the Troost
monitor and the MoDNR’s June 19, 2019
updated modeling demonstration (with
the February 2020 correction).26 The
2014 SO2 Guidance recommends that
states, at a minimum, model the most
recent three years of actual emissions
data and concurrent meteorological
23 The highest modeled concentration of SO was
2
160 mg/m3 (61 ppb).
24 Trinity Consultants prepared the revised
modeling BPU March 2016 modeling utilizing the
December 2013 Modeling TAD.
25 The EPA’s TSD for its Round 3 designations
can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2017-08/documents/1_2_rd3final.pdf.
26 The EPA is utilizing the most current ambient
monitoring data at the Troost monitor to support
this action. The State’s request was based on 2015–
2017 data.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
data, for the modeling to simulate what
a monitor would observe.
The state modeled actual emissions
for all sources inside of, and 20
kilometers (km) from, the nonattainment
area.27 The modeled 3-year DV in the
clean data determination modeling
analysis is 113.9 mg/m3, or 43.5 ppb,
which meets the 1-hour standard of 75
ppb.28 The model results satisfy the
criteria for determinations of attainment
according to the EPA’s guidance and
policy. See section IV.b. ‘‘Jackson
County Clean Data Modeling’’ for more
information regarding the EPA’s
analysis of the modeling submitted by
the MoDNR.
ii. Wyandotte County, Kansas
The unclassifiable designation for the
Wyandotte County area was based on
modeling information the KDHE and the
BPU provided to the EPA in 2015 and
2016. Although both air dispersion
modeling analyses demonstrated that
the Wyandotte County area would be in
attainment with the 2010 1-hr SO2
NAAQS based on the emissions rates
used in the modeling, the EPA was not
able to rely upon the analyses to
designate the Wyandotte County Area as
attainment/unclassifiable.
In our February 16, 2016, notice of
intended designations, the EPA stated
that it was not able to rely upon the
September 2015 modeling analysis
provided by KDHE because: Certain
emission rates included in the model
did not represent either the most recent
three years of actual emissions or the
federally enforceable and in effect
allowable emission limits from sources
in Missouri; a source of SO2 emissions
in Missouri was excluded—
Independence Power and Light (IPL)Blue Valley; concerns with the
modeling receptor grid; and the
inclusion of a stack at the BPU-Nearman
facility as a building structure.29
Specifically, the emission rates used in
the modeling analysis submitted by
KDHE in September 2015 for the
following emission points (EP) were at
issue (e.g., State only limits): Veolia
EP1, EP2, and EP3; IPL-Missouri City
EP5 and EP6; Kansas City Power and
Light (KCPL)-Sibley EP5A, EP5B and
EP5C; KCPL-Hawthorn EP6 (Unit 5);
27 The MoDNR also included KCP&L-Sibley, a
source that is 50 km from the area, in the modeling
at its most recent three years of actual emissions
because it is a source of SO2 emissions that may
impact concentration gradients in the area.
28 See section IV.b. Jackson County Clean Data
Determination for more information regarding the
EPA’s adjusted background concentration value and
impacts to the modeled maximum impact results.
29 See 81 FR 10563, February 16, 2016.
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
and IPL-Blue Valley EP3, EP4, and
EP5.30
During the public comment period,
the EPA received revised modeling from
BPU (the ‘‘BPU March 2016’’ modeling)
for the Wyandotte County area.31
Although the BPU March 2016
modeling submittal expanded the
modeled receptor grid to include
portions of Platte, Clay and Jackson
counties in Missouri, added IPL-Blue
Valley, removed the stack as a building
structure, and included several Missouri
sources at their actual emission rates
instead of State only limits, the
modeling continued to rely on emission
rates for Veolia that were based on State
only limits.32 33 The BPU March 2016
modeling utilized: 2013 Actual emission
data for IPL-Missouri City EP5 and EP6;
and IPL-Blue Valley EP3, EP4 and EP5;
3-years of CEMS data (2012–2014) for
30 There are several discrepancies in reference to
which emission points (EPs) were modeled. A
comparison of the EPs in the September 2015
modeling, the BPU March 2016 modeling, the
comments submitted by BPU during the Round 2
designations process and the EPA’s Round 2 final
designations TSD and MoDNR permits don’t all
match. For example, the modeling protocol
(appendix A) for the September 2015 modeling
indicates that EPs at IPL Blue Valley would be
included in the model but the modeling results
(appendix B) don’t include those EPs. Appendix A
indicates Veolia EP2 (Boilers 6 and 8) only would
be modeled, but appendix B indicates EP1 (Boiler
1A), EP2 (Boilers 6 and 8) and EP3 (Boiler 7) were
modeled. Also, Hawthorn’s Unit 5 (EP6) was
referred to as Unit 6 in the EPA’s Round 2
designations proposal TSD. This is believed to be
a typographical error and the TSD should have
referred to Unit 5 instead. Additionally, Unit 5
(EP6) is referred to as EU0010 in Hawthorn’s 2017
title V operating permit.
31 Trinity Consultants prepared the revised
modeling BPU March 2016 modeling utilizing the
December 2013 Modeling TAD.
32 The BPU March 2016 modeling indicates that
Veolia EP1, EP2 and EP3 were modeled at
‘‘federally enforceable SIP limits.’’ Trinity
Consultants got the limits from a 2015 state rule—
10 CSR 10–6.261 Control of Sulfur Dioxide
Emissions, but that rule was not SIP approved when
the modeling was submitted to the EPA. However,
a 2013 operating permit, operating permit#
OP2012–050, required EP1 and EP3 to burn natural
gas with fuel oil as a back-up and limited EP2 to
burn coal, natural gas and fuel oil as a back-up. A
2016 construction permit, construction permit#
122016–09, removed fuel oil as a back-up for EP1
and required EP2 to burn natural gas only as well.
The ‘‘Project Description/Emissions Calculations’’
section of the construction permit states that the
‘‘entire installation’’ had not burned fuel oil since
2001. In 2018, the MoDNR issued Veolia a revised
operating permit, operating permit# OP2018–06,
which included EP3’s removal of fuel-oil as a backup, stating that the unit was to burn natural gas
exclusively.
33 In 2015, Missouri’s rule included limits for
Veolia EP1, EP2 and E3. The State submitted 10
CSR 10–6.261 to the EPA for approval into the SIP
in October 2015, then withdrew the rule in April
2018 and revised it, removing Veolia (and limits for
other sources) from the rule. The state resubmitted
the rule for the EPA’s approval in 2019. At the time
of this document, the EPA has not acted on the
State’s request to approve the revised rule into the
SIP.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Apr 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
KCPL-Sibley EP5A, EP5B and EP5C and
KCPL-Hawthorn EP6 (Unit 5). The
KDHE resubmitted the BPU March 2016
modeling to the EPA in January 2017 as
part of its redesignation request for the
Wyandotte County area.
As already noted, the BPU March
2016 modeling utilized emission rates
that were neither representative of the
federally enforceable and in effect
emission rates nor the most recent three
years of actual emissions for Veolia.
However, subsequent to the Round 2
designations, Missouri issued air
construction permit #122016–009,
effective on December 21, 2016, to
Veolia limiting EP1 and EP2 to natural
gas only, removing the permitted ability
for EP1 to also burn fuel oil as a backup and removing the permitted ability
for EP2 to burn coal and fuel oil as a
back-up.34 35 A title V operating permit,
permit #OP2018–006, was issued in
2018. The title V operating permit
included a requirement that the facility
burn natural gas only in EP3-removing
fuel oil as a back-up.36 37 38
With the issuance of the Veolia 2016
construction and 2018 operating
permits, the emission rates used in the
BPU March 2016 modeling are now
conservative (i.e. overestimating the
emission rates) in relation to the
federally enforceable and in effect
emission rates for that source. That is,
the allowable facility-wide emissions
rate used in the BPU March 2016
modeling, based on state only limits,
34 https://dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/permits/docs/
veolia-kc2016cp.pdf.
35 The MoDNR reviewed Veolia’s combustion of
coal in 2016 and 2017 for compliance with the
December 2016 construction permit. The permit
effective date was December 21, 2016, however, it’s
unclear from the permit if the requirement to burn
natural gas only came into effect on the effective
date of the permit or the date the work specified
in the permit was complete, which was January
2018. In addition, the MoDNR gave Veolia a oneyear extension of the compliance date with the
Boiler MACT which allowed them to burn coal
until the end of January 2017. The record indicates
that no coal was burned after January of 2017.
36 https://dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/permits/docs/
veolia-kc2018op.pdf.
37 It should be noted that construction permit
#122016–06 indicates that fuel oil had not been
burned installation wide since 2011.
38 As noted in the ‘‘Connection to the Jackson
County Clean Data Modeling’’ secion of this
document, in the BPU 2016 modeling, the
emissions from EP3 were modeled conservatively
compared to the most recent three years of actual
emissions (i.e. at a higher emissions rate), at a rate
of 0.5 lb/hr. The Jackson County clean data
determination modeling included EP3 at its actual
emissions, which corresponded to modeling rates of
0.3 lb/hr, 0.3 lb/hr, and 0.1 lb/hr for 2016, 2017,
and 2018, respectively. Thus, EPA can rely on the
2016 BPU modeling to determine that the
Wyandotte County area is meeting the NAAQS
since the BPU modeling used an hourly modeled
rate greater than the hourly rate based on actual
emissions from the three most recent years.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20901
was 352.8 pounds per hour. With the
issuance of the 2016 construction
permit and the 2018 operating permit,
EP1, EP2 and EP3 are now limited to
natural gas combustion only. The
estimation of the facility-wide
maximum emissions based on natural
gas is 1.06 pounds per hour.39 In the
Jackson County clean data
determination modeling, discussed in
more detail in sections IV.b and IV.c.v
of this document, Veolia was modeled
using the most recent three years (2016–
2018) of actual emissions which include
a mixture of EP2 burning coal on some
days in 2016 and 2017 and natural gas
only in 2018. See table 5 in section
IV.c.v. for a comparison of the BPU
March 2016 model emission rates and
the Jackson County clean data
determination model emission rates.
Further, in the BPU March 2016
modeling, 2013 actual emissions for
IPL-Blue Valley Units EP3, EP4 and EP5
were used in each of the three years
modeled (2012–2014). These actual
emissions reflect coal combustion, and
the possibility to burn fuel oil as a backup. In 2015, IPL-Blue Valley switched to
natural gas with fuel oil as back-up.40
The EPA proposes to find that the BPU
March 2016 modeling emissions rates,
based on coal (and the possibility to
burn fuel oil as a back-up), are either
representative of actual emissions before
the switch to natural gas or conservative
compared to the actual emissions from
current natural gas operations (and the
ability to burn fuel oil as a back-up) for
the most recent three years of actual
emissions and can therefore be relied
upon in the analysis.41 In the Jackson
County clean data determination
modeling, discussed in more detail in
sections IV.b and IV.c.v of this
document, IPL-Blue Valley was
modeled using the most recent three
years (2016–2018) of actual emissions.
See table 5 in section IV.c.v. for a
comparison of the BPU March 2016
model emission rates and the Jackson
County clean data determination model
emission rates.
The EPA also notes that it is unlikely
that IPL-Blue Valley’s actual emissions
will increase significntly as the
operating permit clearly limits the fuel
for EP3, EP4 and EP5 to natural gas only
with limited fuel oil backup. All of the
39 With the required burning of natural gas,
Veolia’ facility wide potential to emit is 4.66 tons
per year of SO2.
40 IPL-Blue Valley Station ceased coal combustion
in EP5 (Unit 3) as of 4/15/2015 and in EP3 (Unit
1) and EP4 (Unit 2) as of 9/9/2015.
41 MoDNR issued Title V operating permit
number OP2017–27 (hereinafter referred to as
‘‘OP2017–27’’) to IPL-Blue Valley on March 28,
2017. The permit limits the fuel to natural gas only
with fuel oil backup for EP3, EP4 and EP5.
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
20902
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
emission units in the permit that
supported coal combustion (such as coal
handling equipment) have been
removed from permit OP2017–27,
effectively eliminating coal combustion
as a fuel option at the facility.42 In
addition, the basis for the nonapplicability of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
UUUUU in the permit is the fact that the
emission units are not coal-fired or oilfired electric utility steam generating
units. As discussed in the Statement of
Basis to OP2017–27, the facility
submitted a construction permit
application in 2014 to cease firing coal
in EP5. Missouri ultimately determined
that a construction permit was not
required, presumably because the
project did not result in an increase in
emissions that were greater than
Missouri’s minor New Source Review
permitting thresholds, but the
application signaled IPL’s intent to
cease burning coal for EP5. With the
issuance of OP2017–27, IPL’s intent to
cease burning coal became
memorialized in the facility’s federally
enforceable title V air permit.
Regarding the potential to combust
fuel oil as a back-up, the source is
limited to a period of less than 48-hours
annually to combust fuel oil.
Additionally, although noted under a
requirement for particulate matter (10
10 CSR 10–6.405, Restriction of
Particulate Matter Emissions from Fuel
Burning Equipment Used for Indirect
Heating), the permit states that because
the source is limited to burning natural
gas or fuel oil with less than 1.2 percent
sulfur content, the source is in
compliance with the MoDNR’s
particulate matter regulation. Given how
few hours the facility is permitted to
burn fuel oil, the facility when burning
fuel oil may be treated as an intermittent
source that, in accordance with EPA’s
intermittent source policy, need not be
explicitly modeled.
Additionally, in the 2016 BPU
modeling analysis IPL-Missouri City
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
42 In a letter dated December 24, 2014, the
MoDNR told IPL-Blue Valley that it recommended
the coal handling equipment be dismantled or
otherwise permanently disabled upon the cease
firing of coal, such that coal cannot be fired. The
installation should report the nature and extent of
the actions performed and their date. The letter
states that even if coal handling equipment was not
rendered inoperable, a construction permit would
be required prior to firing coal. The installation’s
coal delivery contract expires December 31, 2014
and there are no plans to renew it.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Apr 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
emission rates were based on actual
emissions from 2013. In September
2015, the IPL-Missouri City units ceased
power generation and are in the process
of being demolished. Since the two IPLMissouri City units are no longer able to
operate, the EPA proposes to find that
the emission rates used in BPU’s
modeling based on 2013 actual
emissions are conservative compared to
the most recent three years of actual
emissions rates, and notes that actual
emissions rates are likely to remain zero
given that the source has ceased
operation.43 In the Jackson County clean
data determination modeling, discussed
in more detail in sections IV.b and
IV.c.v of this document, IPL-Missouri
City was modeled using the most recent
three years (2016–2018) of emissions
which were zero. See table 5 in section
IV.c.v. for a comparison of the BPU
March 2016 model emission rates and
the Jackson County clean data
determination model emission rates.
Therefore, the EPA is proposing that
because the 2016 BPU modeling now
represents the Missouri emission
points—Veolia EP1, EP2, and EP3; IPL
Missouri City EP5 and EP6; KCPL Sibley
EP5A, EP5B and EP5C; KCPL Hawthorn
EP6; and IPL Blue Valley EP3, EP4, and
EP5—at either their 2013 actual
emission rate (KCPL-Sibley and
Hawthorn), a rate that is higher than a
federally enforceable and in effect
facility wide maximum emission rate or
most recent three years of actual
emissions, depending on the emissions
unit (Veolia), or emission rates that are
higher than the sources’ most recent
three years of actual emission rates (IPLBlue Valley and Missouri City), in
addition to the Missouri June 19, 2019
clean data determination modeling
(with the February 2020 correction)
clearly showing that when considering
2016–2018 actual emissions the
Wyandotte County sources are not
causing or contributing to a modeled
violation of the NAAQS, it can now
consider the BPU March 2016 modeling
to redesignate the Wyandotte County
Area to attainment/unclassifiable. The
EPA acknowledges that the BPU March
2016 modeling was developed using an
earlier version of the Modeling TAD,
however, the EPA proposes to find that
the changes at issue in the update to the
TAD should not impact reliability of the
modeling.44 The EPA’s analysis of the
BPU March 2016 modeling is provided
in the ‘‘What is the EPA’s Analysis of
the Air Quality Monitoring and
Modeling Data?’’ section of this
document.
43 The title V Operating Permit for IPL-Missouri
City was terminated on January 31, 2018. In the
event IPL-Missouri were to try and start operation,
they would need to submit a major New Source
Review permit application.
44 The 2016 TAD update addressed receptor
exclusion and clarified that, at minimum, 3 years
of meteorological data and emissions data need to
be modeled. Both these changes do not affect the
BPU modeling.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
IV. What is the EPA’s analysis of the air
quality monitoring and modeling data?
A. Monitoring Data
According to the 2014 SO2 Guidance,
to support a clean data determination
based on monitoring, the State needs to
demonstrate that the area is meeting the
standard based on three consecutive
calendar years of complete and qualityassured air quality monitoring data
(consistent with 40 CFR part 58
requirements) at an air quality monitor
that is demonstrated to be in the area of
maximum concentration. The EPA has
determined that three complete
consecutive calendar years of qualityassured air quality monitoring data from
the Troost (Jackson County, Missouri)
and JFK (Wyandotte County, Kansas)
monitors have been recorded in the
EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS), and
the data meets the requirements of
appendix T to 40 CFR part 50 and 40
CFR part 58. This data suggests
improved air quality in both areas. As
shown below in table 1, the 99th
percentile 1-hour average (in ppb) and
3-year dv at the Troost and JFK monitors
has decreased since 2013 and do not
show violations of the 2010 1-hr
primary SO2 NAAQS. The certified 3year 2016–2018 dv for the Jackson
County area is 11 ppb; the certified 3year 2016–2018 dv for the Wyandotte
County area is 7 ppb.
However, MoDNR did not submit a
demonstration showing that the Troost
monitor is in the area of maximum
concentration. Thus, the monitoring
data on its own is not enough to support
a clean data determination in this case,
and, as such, the MoDNR submitted
modeling to support the clean data
determination.
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
20903
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—99TH PERCENTILE 1-HOUR AVERAGE IN PARTS PER BILLION (PPB) AND 3-YEAR DESIGN VALUE AT THE TROOST
AND JFK MONITORS
[2013–2018]
Monitor
Site
name
29–095–0034
20–209–0021
Troost
JFK ....
2013
2014
156
45
125.2
55.1
B. Jackson County Clean Data Modeling
As noted earlier, the 2014 SO2
Guidance states that, for the EPA to
make a clean data determination, the
State may need to submit information in
addition to monitoring data if the area
was designated nonattainment based on
air quality monitoring data. In June
2019, the MoDNR submitted the Jackson
County clean data determination
modeling and updated the modeling
information in February 2020.45 The
EPA reviewed the modeling data to
determine consistency with the EPA’s
Clean Data Policy, the 2014 SO2
Guidance, and the August 2016 SO2
Modeling TAD. The EPA reviewed the
submittal to determine if the
appropriate meteorological data,
background concentration, building
downwash data, source characteristics,
and emissions data were utilized.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
i. Meteorological Data
The MoDNR elected to use the most
recent three-year period (2016–2018) of
meteorological data as measured at a
spatially and temporally representative
National Weather Service airport site.
The MoDNR utilized the Kansas City
Downtown Airport (KC Airport), which
is located less than 1 kilometer to the
north of the nonattainment area and
provides similar land-use and
meteorological characteristics for
surface data, and the Topeka Regional
Airport (Topeka Airport) site for upper
air data. The meteorological data from
the time period of 2016–2018 was
processed using AERMET (version
18081), with the ADJ_U* option, and
paired with the emissions data as
discussed below using the AERMOD
modeling system.46 47 Although
appendix W and the 2014 SO2 Guidance
suggest that a state use five years of
meteorological data from an NWS site,
45 The MoDNR’s submittal included 2016–2018
emissions data. The submittal includes tables of the
sources included in the model and the emission
rates used in the model. This information is
provided in the docket.
46 The MoDNR used AERMOD version 18081, the
most recent version of AERMOD with ADJ_U*,
which is a regulatory option for version 18081.
47 See the state’s modeling demonstration,
provided in the docket to this action, for model
selection information (i.e., receptor grid selection).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Apr 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
2015
2016
142
37.6
2017
9.4
9.6
the August 2016 Modeling TAD suggests
that at a minimum a state should utilize
three years of meteorological data.
Because a clean data determination for
the 1-hr SO2 NAAQS would look at
monitoring data over a 3-year
timeframe, the EPA is proposing to
determine that the utilization of three
years of meteorological data from these
sites was sufficient for the clean data
determination modeling demonstration.
ii. Background Concentration
The MoDNR used 2016–2018 SO2
monitoring data from the JFK air quality
monitor paired with wind direction data
from the KC Airport to determine the
appropriate background concentration.
The MoDNR utilized the Openair
package within the R-software to plot
monitored 1-hr SO2 emissions paired
with temporally matching 1-hr wind
direction data. The MoDNR determined
that the 180 to 260-degree sector of the
JFK monitor, represents the area that is
the least impacted by emission sources
that were explicitly modeled.48 The
MoDNR obtained all hourly SO2
monitoring data when winds were
blowing from this sector and calculated
the 99th percentile of hourly
concentrations for each year. However,
the State did not use the 99th percentile
of yearly maximum hourly daily
concentrations in its background sector
analysis. The EPA corrected the State’s
background analysis to fit the form of
the 1-hr standard (e.g., 3-yr year average
of the 99th percentile of the annual
maximum 1-hr daily concentration) and
determined that the sector base
background would be 3.2 ppb. Table 2
provides the results from this analysis.
48 Given the locations/distribution of the sources
that were explicitly modeled, 180–260 is an
acceptable range to ensure the monitor is least
impacted by the modeled sources. A 90-degree
sector is used to determine the area of impact on
a source. Given the location of BPU-Nearman to the
NE of the JFK monitor and numerous sources to the
SE of the monitor, the 180–260 sector to determine
background is appropriate.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2016–2018
design value
2018
18.4
5.5
6.1
6.1
11
7
TABLE 2—JFK MONITOR’S 99TH PERCENTILE
SO2
CONCENTRATION
WITHIN 180–260 DEGREES WIND
SECTORS
Year
180–260
degrees wind
sectors 99th
percentile
concentration
(ppb)
2016 ......................................
2017 ......................................
2018 ......................................
4.1
2.9
2.7
Average .........................
3.2
The average of the three-year 99th
percentiles (3.2 ppb) was determined to
be the appropriate background value.
The EPA proposes to determine that the
background value of 3.2 ppb is
appropriate and comports with
appendix W and the 2014 SO2
Guidance.
iii. Source Characteristics
The EPA reviewed the MoDNR’s
source characterization used in its
modeling demonstration, including
source types, stack heights, and stack
exit temperatures and velocities. The
EPA is proposing to determine
MoDNR’s source characterization was
consistent with the recommendations of
appendix W and the 2014 SO2
Guidance. The State modeled all stacks
at their actual stack heights, following
the 2014 SO2 Guidance, which states,
‘‘Consistent with previous SO2
modeling guidance (U.S. EPA, 1994)
and section 6.2.2 of appendix W, for
stacks with heights that are within the
limits of Good Engineering Practice
(GEP), actual heights should be used in
modeling.’’ 49
iv. Emissions Data
The MoDNR modeled the 2016–2018
SO2 emissions for every permitted
source of emissions located inside the
nonattainment area and within 20 km of
the nonattainment area. The MoDNR
also modeled a source (KCPL Sibley)
located within 50 km of the
49 U.S. EPA, 1994: SO Guideline Document.
2
EPA–452/R–95–008. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
20904
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
nonattainment area because its SO2
emissions were over 1,000 tons/year.
The MoDNR characterized the
emissions from the sources in the
modeling inventory in three ways: (1)
Veolia burning coal or natural gas; (2)
sources with CEMS data, and (3) sources
without CEMS (other than Veolia).
For the Veolia facility, the MoDNR
performed an analysis to temporally
allocate its actual emissions during the
2016 and 2017 modeling periods.50 The
MoDNR asserted that this was necessary
to capture the effect of switching from
coal to natural gas on EP2, as required
by the current operating permit (MO
OP2018–006) and a 2016 construction
permit (MO 122016–009). The emission
inventory questionnaire (EIQ) submitted
to the MoDNR by Veolia showed that it
was still burning coal in EP2 during a
few days in 2016 and 2017, with all
other days burning natural gas.51 Since
the EIQ did not specify the dates when
the facility was still burning coal, the
MoDNR contacted the facility to obtain
those dates with coal usage. The
MoDNR temporalized the coal annual
emissions to hourly emissions based on
those days. For example, during 2017,
EP2 operated using coal on nine days
and the MoDNR assumed coal
combustion on each hour for the nine
days (216 hours). The MoDNR divided
the 2017 annual emissions (173.90 tons)
by 216 hours and multiplied the result
by 2,000 to obtain the hourly emissions
in pounds per hour (1,610.15 lbs./hour).
The MoDNR then created an hourly
emission file to account for the coal
emissions where each of the 216 hours
of 2017 emission year was assigned
202.88 grams per second (grams/sec)
and the remaining 8,544 hours were
assigned zero grams/sec. In addition, the
remaining 8,544 hours of operation for
EP2 in 2017 were modeled assuming
natural gas combustion (0.30 lb/hr).
For all sources that have CEMS
installed, the MoDNR obtained the
actual hourly varying SO2 emissions
from EPA’s Clean Air Market’s Division
(CAMD) and modeled those emissions.
For sources without CEMS data, with
the exception of Veolia, the MoDNR
50 Veolia
is not required to operate a CEMS.
previously mentioned, the MoDNR
reviewed Veolia’s combustion of coal in 2016 and
2017 for compliance with the December 2016
construction permit. The permit effective date was
December 21, 2016, however, it’s unclear from the
permit if the requirement to burn natural gas only
came into effect on the effective date of the permit
or the date the work specified in the permit was
complete, which was January 2018. In addition, the
MoDNR gave Veolia a one-year extension of the
compliance date with the Boiler MACT which
allowed them to burn coal until the end of January
2017. The record indicates that no coal was burned
after January of 2017.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
51 As
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Apr 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
determined each sources’ highest actual
annual emissions during years 2016,
2017 and 2018. The MoDNR used the
highest annual emissions in the
AERMOD input files for years 2016–
2018. The MoDNR determined the
hourly emissions for each of the
modeled source facilities by dividing its
highest annual emissions by the number
of actual operational hours to determine
a representative operational emission
rate. The MoDNR then used this
operational hourly emission rate as the
emission input for all hours of the year
for the three-year period.52 Thus, the
State modeled an hourly emission rate
even for hours where there were no
actual operations. As explained further
below, this approach likely models
slightly higher total annual emissions
than the actual annual emissions.
The EPA is proposing to determine
that the modeled source inventory was
both created and characterized in
accordance with the 2014 SO2 Guidance
and the 2016 SO2 Modeling TAD. The
August 2016 Modeling TAD
recommends utilizing hourly CEMS
data in modeling analyses for the
purpose of designations or clean data
determinations. The MoDNR has done
this for sources with CEMS. The August
2016 Modeling TAD says that in the
absence of CEMS data, simply dividing
the annual emissions by the number of
hours in the year (8,760) is not an
accurate representation of actual
emissions for sources that experience
emissions rate variability throughout the
year and should not be used. The EPA
is proposing to determine that by using
the highest annual emissions from
2016–2018 for the sources without
CEMS, other than Veolia, and then
dividing that number by the number of
operational hours the hourly emissions
input is acceptable. The EPA is
proposing that the MoDNR adequately
assessed the 2016 and 2017 Veolia
emissions on the few days when
burning coal and that the
characterization of Veolia’s 2016–2018
emissions is acceptable. Also, as
mentioned above in the ‘‘What Are the
Criteria to be Redesignated from
Unclassifiable to Attainment/
Unclassifiable?’’ section of this
document, the EPA has determined that
it is appropriate to model a mix of
allowable and actual emissions.
52 During
the EPA’s review of modeling files
submitted with the June 19, 2019 Jackson County
clean data determination submittal, it noticed that
the files did not reflect the State’s narrative of using
the highest annual emissions from 2016–2018. In
February 2020, the State submitted corrected
emissions files. The June 2019 and the February
2020 emission files are available in the docket to
this rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
v. Results
The maximum modeled impact from
the June 19, 2019 Jackson County clean
data determination modeling (with the
February 2020 correction) was 113.9 mg/
m3, or 43.5 ppb.53 The modeling
scenario with the EPA’s adjusted
background is 115.1 mg/m3 or 44 ppb,
which meets the 1-hour standard of 75
ppb. The maximum modeled impact
was located to the southeast of Veolia,
caused on the modeled days when coal
was combusted at Veolia.
The EPA proposes that the model
results, along with monitored values
below the NAAQS at the Troost Street
monitor for the same time period,
satisfies the criteria for clean data
according to the EPA’s guidance.
Certified and quality assured 2018 air
quality monitoring data is indicative of
a substantial improvement in SO2 air
quality in the nonattainment area; the
design value for 2016–2018 is 11 ppb.
The MoDNR’s monitoring data,
technical modeling analysis and
supplemental information all support
EPA’s proposed determination,
consistent with its Clean Data Policy,
that the nonattainment area has clean
data and warrants a determination of
attainment.
C. Wyandotte County Redesignation
Modeling
As previously noted, the KDHE
submitted the BPU March 2016
modeling as an appendix to its January
2017 Round 3 designations submittal.
Because the Wyandotte County area was
already designated in Round 2, the EPA
had no obligation to consider the
KDHE’s recommendation during Round
3 and instead stated that it would
consider the KDHE’s request for
redesignation in a separate action. This
section describes the EPA’s review of
the BPU March 2016 modeling data
submitted to the EPA by the KDHE in
January 2017 and the EPA’s reasoning
for proposing to determine that the
Wyandotte County area is attaining the
1-hour SO2 NAAQS and to redesignate
the Wyandotte County area to
attainment/unclassifiable. Also as
previously noted, the BPU March 2016
modeling was completed in accordance
with the December 2013 Modeling
TAD.54 55
53 MoDNR submitted modeling on February 24,
2020 to correct the modeled actual emissions at
threes sources (Audubon Materials, Blue River
Treatment Plant and KCPL Northeast Station). The
February 24, 2020 modeling did not change the
maximum modeled results from the June 19, 2019
modeling submittal.
54 A side-by-side comparison of the December
2013 and August 2016 Modeling TADs is available
in the docket to this rulemaking. The August 2016
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
i..Meteorological Data
The BPU March 2016 modeling used
AERMOD’s meteorological data
preprocessor AERMET (version 14134)
with 2012–2014 surface meteorological
data from the KC Airport (referred to as
the Charles B. Wheeler Downtown
Airport in the modeling document) and
upper air meteorological data from the
NWS upper-air balloon station, located
in Topeka, Kansas. Although appendix
W, the 2014 SO2 Guidance and the
December 2013 Modeling TAD (as well
as the August 2016 Modeling TAD)
suggest that a state use 5 years of
meteorological data from a NWS site (or
at least one year of on-site
meteorological data) for SIP
development, this redesignation is not a
redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment, therefore no SIP was
required from the KDHE for
maintenance. The Modeling TAD
indicates that for designations a
minimum of three years of
meteorological data should be used.
Redesignations from unclassifiable to
attainment/unclassifiable are a factual
determination of whether the area is
attaining the NAAQS, much like an
initial designation. As such, the EPA
believes utilization of 3 years of
meteorological data from these sites is
sufficient for this analysis.
ii. Background Concentration
Upon request from the KDHE, the
BPU March 2016 modeling used a 1hour SO2 background concentration of
13 ppb. At the time of the BPU model’s
development, the MoDNR adopted an
attainment plan for the Jackson County
area (subsequently withdrawn from the
EPA). In the now-withdrawn attainment
SIP, the MoDNR described its
background concentration analysis
which it shared with the KDHE. In its
background concentration analysis, the
MoDNR obtained 2010–2012 monitoring
data from the JFK monitor. The MoDNR
ran back trajectories using a HYSPLIT
model for monitored values above 10
ppb, 15 ppb, and 20 ppb. From the back-
trajectory analysis, a sector with little to
no influence from Missouri or Kansas
SO2 sources was chosen to represent
background concentrations; the sector
with the least source influence was at
180–200 degrees. Once a representative
sector was a chosen, the highest
monitoring values from that sector were
evaluated. The 2010–2012 fourth high
hourly monitored SO2 value in the
representative sector was 13 ppb.
Therefore, a SO2 concentration of 13
ppb was used as the modeled
background concentration for the
MoDNR’s Jackson County SO2 area
planning purposes, was shared with the
KDHE, and used in the BPU March 2016
modeling. A discussion of the
background concentrations used in the
Jackson County CDD modeling and the
BPU March 2016 modeling is provided
in the ‘‘Connection to the Jackson
County Clean Data Modeling’’ section of
this document.
The EPA proposes to determine that
the background value of 13.0 ppb is
appropriate and comports with
appendix W, the 2014 SO2 Guidance
and the Modeling TAD.
iii. Source Characteristics
The EPA reviewed the BPU March
2016 source characterization used in its
modeling demonstration, including
source types, stack heights, and stack
exit temperatures and velocities. The
EPA is proposing to determine BPU’s
source characterization was consistent
with the recommendations of appendix
W and the 2014 SO2 Guidance. BPU
modeled all stacks at their actual stack
heights, following the 2014 SO2
Guidance, which says, ‘‘Consistent with
previous SO2 modeling guidance (U.S.
EPA, 1994) and section 6.2.2 of
Appendix W, for stacks with heights
that are within the limits of Good
Engineering Practice (GEP), actual
heights should be used in modeling.’’
iv. Emissions Data
In the BPU March 2016 model, BPUNearman, KCP&L-Sibley EP5A, EP5B
and EP5C, and KCP&L-Hawthorn Unit 5
20905
(EP6) were included using 2012–2014
CEMS data. Each of the IPL (Missouri
City and Blue Valley) emission points
were modeled using their 2013 actual
emissions. These 2013 actual emissions
reflect coal combustion at IPL-Blue
Valley and IPL-Missouri City, and since
IPL-Missouri City has shut down and
IPL-Blue Valley has switched to natural
gas, the EPA proposes to find that the
modeled emissions rates based on coal
is conservative compared to the most
recent three years of actual emissions
from natural gas operations and
shutdown and can therefore be relied
upon in the analysis.
Table 3 provides annual SO2
emissions for the major point sources in
the area. Actual emissions have been
reduced in 2018 at every major source
compared to the 2012–2014 timeframe
used in the BPU 2016 modeling. SO2
emissions at these major point sources
are down 83 percent from the highest
emission year of 2013 (28,241 tons per
year) to 2018 (4,738 tons per year). In
addition, 2013 actual emissions used for
modeled emissions at IPL-Blue Valley
and IPL-Missouri City are the highest
annual emissions at these two sources
in the 2012–2018 timeframe. These two
sources reported zero SO2 emissions in
2018. Thus, EPA finds the modeled
emissions from 2012–2014 for BPUNearman, KCP&L-Sibley EP5A, EP5B
and EP5C, KCP&L-Hawthorn EP6 (Unit
5), and the 2013 emissions assuming
coal combustion for IPL-Blue Valley and
shutdown of IPL-Missouri City
acceptable.
In the BPU March 2016 modeling,
Veolia emission points EP1, EP2 and
EP3 were modeled at 0.50, 351.8 and
0.50 lbs/hr of SO2, respectively. The
modeled Veolia rates are conservative to
the permitted requirement to burn
natural gas, and the 2016–2018 actual
emissions modeled in the Jackson
County clean data determination
modeling. The EPA is proposing to
determine that the emission rates used
in the BPU March 2016 modeling
comport with the Modeling TAD.
TABLE 3—MAJOR INDIVIDUAL POINT SOURCE SO2 EMISSIONS (TONS PER YEAR) IN WYANDOTTE COUNTY, KANSAS,
JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AND CLAY COUNTY, MISSOURI
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2012
Veolia ...........................
Nearman ......................
Blue Valley ...................
Sibley ...........................
2013
6,702
4,612
1,295
6,095
7,934
4,928
1,487
6,218
version identifies that the Data Requirements Rule
was finalized, and that the EPA proposed to revise
Appendix W, among other changes.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Apr 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
2014
2015
7,782
5,333
998
4,847
7,343
4,763
229
7,630
55 The BPU March 2016 modeling was performed
using AERMOD version 15181 which was the most
recent version of AERMOD when the state initited
the modeling analysis during Round 2. The EPA has
issued three updated versions of AERMOD (version
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2016
25
2,439
1
3,604
2017
175
904
0
4,162
2018
1
1,023
0
2,616
19191 is the latest), but the model bug fixes and
enhancements since the 15181 version are not
expected to change the results of the modeling
conducted with AERMOD version 15181.
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
20906
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—MAJOR INDIVIDUAL POINT SOURCE SO2 EMISSIONS (TONS PER YEAR) IN WYANDOTTE COUNTY, KANSAS,
JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AND CLAY COUNTY, MISSOURI—Continued
2012
Hawthorn ......................
Quindaro ......................
Missouri City ................
2013
1,577
2,758
684
2014
1,728
2,905
741
v. Connection to the Jackson County
Clean Data Modeling
A background value of 13 ppb was
utilized in the BPU March 2016
modeling and an adjusted background
value of 3.2 ppb was used in the Jackson
County CDD modeling. Although the
2015
1,441
3,684
0
2016
1,368
853
723
background concentrations were
determined using the same analysis
method (i.e., sector exclusion analysis)
the numbers are significantly different.
The EPA has found this is likely due to
the difference in years used in the
analysis, 2012–2014 in the BPU March
2016 modeling vs. 2016–2018 in the
2017
1,043
27
2018
1,180
1
1,089
8
Jackson County CDD modeling. The
2016–2018 years reflect a significant
reduction in SO2 emissions in both the
Wyandotte and Jackson County areas
since 2012. Table 4 shows the total
point source SO2 emission reductions
from 2012–2018.
TABLE 4—POINT SOURCE SO2 EMISSIONS (TONS PER YEAR) WYANDOTTE COUNTY, KANSAS AND JACKSON COUNTY,
MISSOURI
State
County
2012
KS ....................
MO ...................
Wyandotte ................................
Jackson ....................................
7,401
19,115
7,860
19,762
9,038
16,307
5,634
19,673
2,481
4,832
922
5,686
1,051
4,282
Total .........
..............................................
26,516
27,622
25,345
25,308
7,313
6,608
5,333
The BPU March 2016 model had a
receptor grid that included the Jackson
County area, as well as portions of Platte
and Clay counties in Missouri in
addition to Wyandotte County, Kansas.
The BPU March 2016 modeling
included all the large SO2 emitters in
Missouri, except for Veolia, at their
actual emissions. In some cases, these
emissions were much higher than the
more recent actual emissions used by
the MoDNR in its Jackson County clean
data determination modeling. For
example, the BPU March 2016 modeling
included the IPL-Missouri City emission
points at their 2013 actual emissions,
however that source has since shut
down and, as such, they were not
included in the Jackson County clean
2013
2014
data determination modeling. BPUNearman was included in the BPU
March 2016 modeling at its 2012–2014
CEMS rate but was included at a much
lower rate, 2016–2018 CEMS rate, in the
Jackson County clean data
determination modeling.
As previously discussed in this
document, during the Round 2
designations, the EPA found that
because the BPU March 2016 modeling
included Veolia at emission rates that
were neither federally enforceable and
in effect nor reflective of the facility’s
most recent three years of actual
emissions, it could not rely on the
modeling to designate the Wyandotte
County area. Subsequently, Missouri
issued construction and operating
2015
2016
2017
permits to Veolia that limit the emission
points to burning natural gas. Therefore,
the Veolia emission rates used in the
BPU March 2016 modeling are now
higher than the maximum emission
rates of natural gas combustion and
higher than the 2016–2018 actual
emission modeled in the Jackson
County clean data determination
modeling. These actual emissions
included periods of time when Veolia
was still burning coal—a practice that is
no longer permitted. A comparison of
the BPU March 2016 modeled emission
rates and the Jackson County clean data
determination modeled emission rates is
given in table 5.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 5—MODEL INPUT COMPARISON
Jackson County
CDD model
Model input
BPU March 2016 model
AERMOD Version .....................................................
Meteorological Data ..................................................
Background concentration ........................................
BPU-Nearman ..........................................................
Veolia
EP1 ....................................................................
EP2 ....................................................................
EP3 ....................................................................
IPL Missouri City
EP5 ....................................................................
EP6 ....................................................................
IPL Blue Valley
EP3 ....................................................................
EP4 ....................................................................
EP5 ....................................................................
KCP&L Sibley
15181 ......................................................................
2012–2014 ..............................................................
13 ppb .....................................................................
2012–2014 CEMS ...................................................
18081
2016–2018
3.2 ppb.
2016–2018 CEMS.
0.5 lb/hr ...................................................................
351.8 lb/hr ...............................................................
0.5 lb/hr ...................................................................
= <0.12 lb/h.
= <0.30 lb/hr 1.
= <0.30 lb/hr.
2013 actual 220.4 lb/hr ...........................................
2013 actual 0.1 lb/hr ...............................................
Shutdown.
Shutdown.
2013 actual 193.4 lb/hr ...........................................
2013 actual 224.6 lb/hr ...........................................
2013 actual 340.3 lb/hr ...........................................
0.006 lb/hr.
0.004 lb/hr.
0.009 lb/hr.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Apr 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2018
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
20907
TABLE 5—MODEL INPUT COMPARISON—Continued
Jackson County
CDD model
Model input
BPU March 2016 model
EP5A .................................................................
EP5B .................................................................
EP5C .................................................................
Hawthorn
EP6 ....................................................................
Modeling Results ......................................................
2012–2014 CEMS ...................................................
2012–2014 CEMS ...................................................
2012–2014 CEMS ...................................................
2016–2018 CEMS.
2016–2018 CEMS.
2016–2018 CEMS.
2012–2014 CEMS ...................................................
49.24 ppb ................................................................
2016–2018 CEMS.
43.47 ppb.
1 In addition to this modeled actual SO emissions from natural gas, EP2 was also modeled with actual SO emissions for the days Boiler 8
2
2
burned coal.
With a higher background
concentration, higher modeled
emissions from both Kansas and
Missouri sources, the BPU March 2016
modeling demonstrates that the
Wyandotte County area is attaining the
standard. The BPU March 2016
modeling also demonstrates that the
Wyandotte County area is not
contributing to a modeled violation of
the NAAQS in the nearby Jackson
County area, which, as explained in
III.g. ‘‘What is the EPA’s Rationale for
Proposing This Action?’’, the EPA is
proposing to determine the Jackson
County area is currently attaining the
standard based on Missouri’s June 2019
clean data determination modeling
including the Veolia emission points at
actual emissions from 2016–2018.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
vi. Results
The maximum modeled impact from
the BPU March 2016 model scenario,
with the 34 mg/m3 (13 ppb) background
included, is 163 mg/m3 or 62 ppb which
complies with the 1-hour standard of 75
ppb. This maximum modeled
concentration is located to the southeast
of BPU-Nearman in Wyandotte County,
Kansas. The BPU March 2016 modeling
as well as the KDHE’s monitoring data
for the JFK monitoring location, the
MoDNR’s monitoring data for the Troost
monitoring location and the MoDNR’s
Jackson County clean data
determination modeling support the
EPA’s proposed determination that the
area does not contribute to a violation
of the NAAQS in the Jackson County
area (which the MoDNR has
demonstrated is monitoring and
modeling attainment of the standard)
and warrants a redesignation from
unclassifiable to attainment/
unclassifiable.
Note: Due to their large size, some or
all modeling data files may not be
available in the docket (please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Apr 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
V. When promulgated, what are the
effects of this action?
A. Jackson County, Missouri
If the proposed determination is made
final, the requirements for the MoDNR
to submit an attainment demonstration,
a reasonable further progress plan,
contingency measures, and other
planning SIP revisions related to
attainment of the 2010 1-hr primary SO2
NAAQS in Jackson County shall be
suspended until such time, if any, that
the EPA subsequently determines, after
notice-and-comment rulemaking in the
Federal Register, that the area has
violated the 2010 1-hr primary SO2
NAAQS. If this were to occur, the basis
for the suspension of the specific SIP
requirements would no longer exist, and
the State would thereafter have to
address the pertinent requirements. If
finalized, this determination of
attainment would not shield the area
from other required actions, such as
provisions to address pollution
transport, which could require emission
reductions at sources or other types of
emission activities contributing
significantly to nonattainment in other
areas or states or interfering with
maintenance in those areas. The EPA
has the authority to require emissions
reductions as necessary and appropriate
to deal with transported air pollution
situations. See CAA sections
110(a)(2)(D), 110(a)(2)(A), and 126.
If, after considering any comments
received on this proposal, the EPA
finalizes a clean data determination for
this area, the MoDNR would need to
continue to monitor and/or model air
quality to verify continued attainment.
The MoDNR would be expected to
continue to operate an appropriate air
quality monitoring network in the
affected area, in accordance with the
EPA regulations, to verify the
attainment status of the area (see 40 CFR
part 58).
This proposed clean data
determination is limited to a
determination that the Jackson County
area attained the 2010 1-hr primary SO2
NAAQS as evidenced by the MoDNR’s
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
monitoring data and modeling analysis;
this proposed determination, if
finalized, would not constitute a
redesignation to attainment under
section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. The
designation status of the Jackson County
area will remain nonattainment for the
2010 1-hr primary SO2 NAAQS until
such time as the MoDNR submits an
approvable redesignation request and
maintenance plan, and the EPA takes
final rulemaking action to determine
that such submission meets the CAA
requirements for redesignation to
attainment.
B. Wyandotte County, Kansas
If finalized, approval of the
redesignation request would change the
legal designation of Wyandotte County,
found at 40 CFR part 81, from
unclassifiable to attainment/
unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hr SO2
NAAQS. The KDHE’s SIP obligations
are unaffected by this redesignation.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This action proposes to make a
determination based on air quality
monitoring data and modeling and
would, if finalized, result in the
suspension of certain Federal
requirements and would not impose any
additional requirements.
With regard to the redesignation
portion of this action, under the CAA,
redesignation of an area to attainment/
unclassifiable is an action that affects
the air quality designation status of
geographical areas and does not impose
any regulatory requirements. For these
reasons, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
20908
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTA) because this
rulemaking does not involve technical
standards; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
This action does not apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other
area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the action does not have tribal
implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Clean data
determination, Determination of
attainment, Incorporation by reference,
Redesignation, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
Dioxide.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control.
Subpart—AA Missouri
2. In § 52.1343, revise paragraph (b) to
read as follows:
■
§ 52.1343
Control strategy: Sulfur dioxide.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Determination of attainment. EPA
has determined, as of [date of
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register], that the Jackson
County 2010 SO2 nonattainment has
attained the 2010 SO2 1-hr NAAQS.
This determination suspends the
requirements for this area to submit an
attainment demonstration, associated
reasonably available control measures,
reasonable further progress, contingency
measures, and other plan elements
related to attainment of the standards
for as long as the area continues to meet
the 2010 SO2 1-hr NAAQS.
PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS
FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING
PURPOSES
Dated: March 31, 2020.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
3. The authority citation for part 81
continues to read as follows:
■
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 as set forth
below:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart C—Section 107
Status Designations
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Attainment
4. In § 81.317, the table titled
‘‘Kansas—2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS
[Primary]’’ is amended by revising the
entry ‘‘Wyandotte County, KS’’ to read
as follows:
■
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
§ 81.317
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
*
*
Kansas.
*
*
*
KANSAS—2010 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS
[Primary]
Designation
Designated area 1
Date 2
*
*
Wyandotte County, KS ...........................
*
*
Type
*
*
*
*
[Date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], [Federal Register
citation of the final rule].
*
*
*
*
1 Includes
*
Attainment/
Unclassifiable.
*
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified. EPA is not determining the boundaries of any area of Indian
country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in the larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in the designation area is not a determination that the state has regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
2 This date is April 9, 2018, unless otherwise noted.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2020–07143 Filed 4–14–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Apr 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 73 (Wednesday, April 15, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20896-20908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07143]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R07-OAR-2020-0155; FRL-10007-62-Region 7]
Air Plan Approval; Missouri and Kansas; Determination of
Attainment for the Jackson County, Missouri 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide
Nonattainment Area and Redesignation of the Wyandotte County, Kansas
Unclassifiable Area to Attainment/Unclassifiable
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
determine that the Jackson County, Missouri 1-hour (1-hr) Sulfur
Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
Nonattainment Area has attained the NAAQS and to redesignate the
Wyandotte County, Kansas 1-hr SO2 NAAQS Unclassifiable Area
as Attainment/Unclassifiable. Both proposed decisions are based on air
quality monitoring and modeling data.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 15, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2020-0155 to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Written
Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracey Casburn, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number (913) 551-
7016; email address [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Written Comments
II. What action is the EPA proposing?
III. What is the background of this action?
A. Designations
B. Clean Data Policy
C. How does a nonattainment area achieve ``Clean Data'' for the
2010 1-hr primary SO2 NAAQS?
D. What are the criteria to be redesignated from unclassifiable
to attainment/unclassifiable?
E. What information did Missouri provide to the EPA to
demonstrate that the jackson county area has attained the NAAQS?
F. What information did Kansas provide to the EPA to demonstrate
that the Wyandotte County area should be redesignated from
unclassifiable to attainment/unclassifiable?
G. What is the EPA's rationale for proposing this action?
i. Jackson County, Missouri
ii. Wyandotte County, Kansas
IV. What is the EPA's analysis of the air quality monitoring and
modeling data?
A. Monitoring Data
B. Jackson County Clean Data Modeling
i. Meteorological Data
ii. Background Concentration
iii. Source Characteristics
iv. Emissions Data
v. Results
C. Wyandotte County Redesignation Modeling
i. Meteorological Data
ii. Background Concentration
iii. Source Characteristics
iv. Emissions Data
v. Connection to the Jackson County Clean Data Modeling
vi. Results
V. When promulgated, what are the effects of this action?
A. Jackson County, Missouri
B. Wyandotte County, Kansas
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Written Comments
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2020-
0155, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
[[Page 20897]]
II. What action is the EPA proposing?
The EPA is proposing to determine that the Jackson County 2010 1-hr
primary SO2 nonattainment area (hereby referred to as the
``Jackson County area''), in Missouri, has attained the 2010 1-hr
primary SO2 NAAQS.\1\ This proposed determination of
attainment is based on a May 2018 request (later supplemented) from the
Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MoDNR) asking the EPA to
consider complete, quality assured, and certified ambient air
monitoring data from the 2015-2017 monitoring period and make a
determination that the area has attained the 2010 1-hr primary
SO2 NAAQS.2 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In accordance with appendix T to 40 CFR part 50, the 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS is met at an ambient air quality
monitoring site when the valid 1-hour primary standard design value
is less than or equal to 75 parts per billion (ppb). 40 CFR
50.17(b).
\2\ In accordance with appendix T to 40 CFR part 50, a 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS design value is valid if it encompasses
three consecutive calendar years of complete data. A year meets data
completeness requirements when all 4 quarters are complete. A
quarter is complete when at least 75 percent of the sampling days
for each quarter have complete data. A sampling day has complete
data if 75 percent of the hourly concentration values, including
state-flagged data affected by exceptional events which have been
approved for exclusion by the Administrator, are reported.
\3\ Monitoring data must be reported, quality assured, and
certified in accordance with the requirements set forth in 40 CFR
part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is also proposing to redesignate the Wyandotte County,
Kansas 1-hr SO2 NAAQS unclassifiable area (hereinafter
referred to as the ``Wyandotte County area'') to attainment/
unclassifiable based on a January 2017 request from the Kansas
Department of Health and Environment (KDHE).\4\ The EPA's proposed
redesignation of the Wyandotte County area is based on air quality
dispersion modeling submitted by the KDHE and supplemented by modeling
analysis from the MoDNR for the Jackson County area. The relationship
between the MoDNR's modeling analysis and the Wyandotte County area is
explained in more detail in the ``What is the EPA's Analysis of the
Information Submitted by the States?'' and ``Connection to the Jackson
County Clean Data Modeling'' sections of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Designations for the 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQS
occurred/will occur in four phases, often referred to as ``Rounds''.
During Round 2 of the designations process, the EPA used the
designation category ``unclassifiable/attainment'' for areas with
air quality monitoring or modeling data demonstrating attainment and
for areas for which such data weren't available but for which the
EPA had reason to believe the areas were likely attainment and had
not been determined to be contributing to nearby violations (see 81
FR 45039, July 12, 2016, page 45041 footnote 3). For Round 3 of the
designations process the EPA used the designations category of
``attainment/unclassifiable'' instead of ``unclassifiable/
attainment''. The EPA noted that the inversion of the order of the
words ``attainment'' and ``unclassifiable'' in the amended term
``attainment/unclassifiable'' had no consequence itself, and that
there were no regulatory consequences of the change in, or clarified
interpretation of, the terminology applied to the areas to which the
terms are applied. For consistency, the EPA also inverted the order
of ``attainment'' and ``unclassifiable'' for areas previously
designated in Round 2 (81 FR 45039, July 12, 2016, and 81 FR 89870,
December 13, 2016). The re-ordering of the terms had no regulatory
consequence and did not revisit the determinations made in Round 2
for these areas. The EPA found the change was consistent with
Congress' definition of ``attainment area'' in CAA section
107(d)(1)(A)(ii) (see 83 FR 1098, January 9, 2018, page 1099).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has made the monitoring and modeling data available in the
docket to this rulemaking through www.regulations.gov.
III. What is the background of this action?
A. Designations
On June 2, 2010, the EPA established a health-based 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS at 75 ppb.\5\ Upon promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the
EPA to designate any area that does not meet (or that contributes to
ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the NAAQS as
nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our final designations published on August 5, 2013, also known
as Round 1 of the 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQS designations process,
the EPA designated a portion of Jackson County, Missouri, as
nonattainment for the 2010 1-hr primary SO2 NAAQS, effective
October 4, 2013.6 7 The designation was based on 2009-2011
monitoring data from the Troost monitor in Kansas City, Missouri, which
monitored violations of the standard (see section IV. of this document
for additional monitoring information). The effective date of the
nonattainment designation was October 4, 2013. The CAA establishes that
areas designated as nonattainment must attain the standard no later
than five years from the date of designation (i.e., by October 4,
2018). The MoDNR was also required to submit a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) for the nonattainment area to the EPA that meets the
requirements of CAA sections 110, 172(c) and 191-192 within 18 months
following the October 4, 2013, effective date of designation (i.e., by
April 4, 2015). The MoDNR submitted the ``Nonattainment Area Plan for
the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard--
Jackson County Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area'' on October 16, 2015.
The MoDNR withdrew the attainment plan, except for the baseline
emissions inventory, from the EPA's consideration and review for action
on June 6, 2018.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 78 FR 47191, August 5, 2013, codified at 40 CFR 81.326.
\7\ There are four rounds of designations for the 2010 1-hr
SO2 NAAQS. Round 1 was completed in August 2013. Round 2
was completed in July and December 2016. Round 3 was completed in
January 2018. Round 4 is to be signed by the Administrator no later
than December 31, 2020.
\8\ See 84 FR 3703 (February 13, 2019). The EPA published a fnal
rulemaking in the Federal Register approving the MoDNR's 172(c)(3)
baseline year inventory for the Jackson County area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our final designations published on July 12, 2016, also known as
Round 2 of the 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQS designations process, the
EPA designated the Wyandotte County area as unclassifiable. The
unclassifiable designation was based on information the KDHE provided
to the EPA. The KDHE air dispersion modeling analyses indicated modeled
compliance with the NAAQS. However, the modeling analyses included
emission rates for sources in Missouri that weren't reflective of
actual emissions or the sources' federally enforceable allowable
emissions at the time of designation.\9\ Based on this information, the
EPA determined that it did not have enough information demonstrating
whether the Wyandotte County Area was or was not meeting the 2010 1-hr
SO2 NAAQS or its impacts on the Jackson County area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The submittal also indicated that a previously significant
source of SO2, the Kansas Board of Public Utilities-
Quindaro location, did not need to be included in the supporting
modeling because the facility switched to natural gas combustion in
its boilers in 2015. The operating permit for the Quindaro facility
is provided in the docket to this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Clean Data Policy
Where states request a clean data determination of a designated
SO2 NAAQS nonattainment area, the EPA will determine whether
an area has attained the NAAQS based on air quality monitoring data
(when available) and air quality dispersion modeling information for
the affected area as necessary. The EPA issued ``Clean Data'' policy
memoranda for SO2 and other NAAQS describing suspended
attainment planning requirements for nonattainment areas that are
attaining the NAAQS, but have not yet been redesignated to
attainment.10 11
[[Page 20898]]
Additionally, the EPA has issued national rulemakings that have
codified this policy for ozone and fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS.\12\ Under the Clean Data Policy, the EPA
interprets the requirements of the CAA that are specifically designed
to help an area achieve attainment, such as attainment demonstrations
and implementation of reasonably available control measures (including
reasonably available control technology), reasonable further progress
(RFP) demonstrations, and contingency measures, to be suspended as long
as air quality continues to meet the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, e.g., Memorandum of December 14, 2004, from Steve
Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to
the EPA Air Division Directors, ``Clean Data Policy for the Fine
Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards.'' This document is
available at: https://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/guidance.htm.
\11\ The memorandum of April 23, 2014, from Steve Page,
Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to the
EPA Air Division Directors ``Guidance for 1-hr SO2
Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions'' provides guidance for the
application of the clean data policy to the 2010 1-hr primary
SO2 NAAQS. This document is available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf.
\12\ See, e.g., 81 FR 58010, 81 FR 58127-81 FR 58129 (August 24,
2016) (promulgating 40 CFR 51.1015); 80 FR 12264, 80 FR 12296
(promulgating 51.1118). See also 70 FR 71612, 70 FR 71664-70 FR
71646 (November 29, 2005); 72 FR 20585, 72 FR 20603-72 FR 20605
(April 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the memorandum of April 23, 2014, from Steve Page, Director, EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to the EPA Air Division
Directors ``Guidance for 1-hr SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP
Submissions'' (2014 SO2 Guidance), the EPA explained its
intention to extend the Clean Data Policy to 1-hour SO2
nonattainment areas that attained the standard. As noted therein, the
legal bases set forth in the various guidance documents and regulations
establishing the Clean Data Policy for other pollutants are equally
pertinent to all NAAQS.\13\ This proposed rule is also consistent with
prior actions of the EPA applying the Clean Data Policy to two other
nonattainment areas under the 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQS.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See court cases upholding legal basis for the EPA's Clean
Data Determination Policy, NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d at 1258-61 (D.C.
Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996);
Latino Issues Forum v. EPA, 315 Fed. App. 651, 652 (9th Cir. 2009).
\14\ 82 FR 13227 (March 10, 2016) and 81 FR 28718 (May 10,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean data determinations are not redesignations from nonattainment
to attainment. For the EPA to redesignate a nonattainment area to
attainment, a state must submit and receive full approval of a
redesignation request that satisfies all of the statutory criteria for
redesignation to attainment, including a demonstration that the
improvement in the area's air quality is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions; have a fully approved SIP that meets all of the
applicable requirements under CAA section 110 and CAA part D; and have
a fully approved maintenance plan.
C. How does a nonattainment area achieve ``Clean Data'' for the 2010 1-
hr primary SO2 NAAQS?
Generally, the EPA relies on ambient air quality monitoring data
alone in order to make determinations of attainment for areas
designated nonattainment for a NAAQS. However, given the Agency's
historical approach toward SO2, the source-specific nature
of SO2 emissions, and the localized effect of those
emissions, in the preamble to the 2010 1-hr primary SO2
NAAQS rulemaking, the EPA stated that it did not expect to rely solely
on monitored air quality data in all areas when determining if an area
has attained the 2010 1-hr primary SO2 NAAQS (75 FR 35551,
June 22, 2010). As the EPA noted in the preamble, in order for the EPA
to determine that an area is attaining the 2010 1-hr primary
SO2 NAAQS, dispersion modeling may be needed to show that
there are no violating receptors even if a monitoring site showed no
violations.\15\ This was because, as the EPA explained in the preamble,
the Agency did not expect that most existing SO2 monitors
were well sited to record maximum 1-hour ambient SO2
concentrations under the new NAAQS. The 2014 SO2 Guidance
states that, for a nonattainment area that was designated based on air
quality monitoring data to be determined as attaining the NAAQS, the
state would need to meet a series of criteria. First, the state would
need to demonstrate that the area is meeting the standard based on
three consecutive calendar years of air quality monitoring that is
complete and quality-assured (consistent with 40 CFR part 58
requirements). Second, the state would need to either (1) provide
modeling of the most recent three years of actual emissions for the
area or (2) provide a demonstration that the affected monitor(s) is or
are in the area of maximum concentration. As explained in more detail
in section (d) below, the EPA finds that it is permissible to
substitute current source-specific federally enforceable and in effect
allowable emissions for actual emissions for the purpose of
demonstrating (1) above as long as certain requirements are met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ As noted in the preamble to the 2010 1-hr primary
SO2 NAAQS (75 FR 35551, June 22 2010), this has been the
EPA's general position throughout the history of implementation of
the SO2 NAAQS program. See, e.g., ``Air Quality Control
Regions, Criteria, and Control techniques; Attainment Status
Designations,'' 43 FR 40412, 43 FR 40415-43 FR 40416 (September 11,
1978); ``Air Quality Control Regions, Criteria, and Control
Techniques,'' 43 FR 45993, 43 FR 46000-43 FR 46002 (October 5,
1978); ``Air Quality Implementation Plans: State Implementation
Plans; General Preamble,'' 57 FR 13498, 57 FR 13545, 57 FR 13547-57
FR 13557, 57 FR 13548 (April 16, 1992); ``Approval and Promulgation
of State Implementation Plans; Call for Sulfur Dioxide SIP Revisions
for Billings/Laurel, MT,'' 58 FR 41430 (August 4, 1993);
``Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio,'' 59
FR 12886, 59 FR 12887 (March 18, 1994); ``Ambient Air Quality
Standards, National and Implementation Plans for Sulfur Oxides
(Sulfur Dioxide),'' 60 FR 12492, 60 FR 12494-60 FR 12495 (March 7,
1995); ``Air Quality Implementation Plans; Approval and
Promulgation: Various States: Montana,'' 67 FR 22167, 67 FR 22170-67
FR 22171, 67 FR 22183-67 FR 22887 (May 2, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a demonstration shows that the monitor(s) is or are in the area
of maximum concentration, the EPA finds that it may be appropriate to
determine that the nonattainment area is attaining the standard based
on monitoring data alone.
The 2014 SO2 Guidance states that, when air agencies
provide monitoring and/or modeling to support clean data
determinations, the monitoring data provided by the state should follow
the EPA's ``SO2 NAAQS Designations Source-Oriented
Monitoring Technical Assistance Document'' (SO2 Monitoring
TAD) and the modeling provided by the state should follow the EPA's
``SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical Assistance
Document'' (SO2 Modeling TAD).\16\ The SO2
Modeling TAD outlines modeling approaches for characterizing air
quality under the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for designations. In the
SO2 Modeling TAD, the EPA recommends using a minimum of the
most recent three years of actual emissions data, and concurrent
meteorological data, so that the modeling better simulates what an
ambient air monitor would observe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The EPA released earlier versions, December and May 2013,
of both the modeling and monitoring TADs, as well as an earlier
February 2016 version of the modeling TAD. The February 2016 version
of the ``SO2 NAAQS Designations Source-Oriented
Monitoring Draft Technical Assistance Document, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division'',
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/so2monitoringtad.pdf. The August 2016 version of the
``SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical Assistance
Document, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality
Assessment Division'', can be found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/so2modelingtad.pdf. The December
2013 versions of the documents can be found in the docket to this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. What are the criteria to be redesignated from unclassifiable to
attainment/unclassifiable?
Section 107(d)(3) of the CAA provides the framework for changing
the area designations for any NAAQS pollutant.
[[Page 20899]]
Section 107(d)(3)(A) provides that the Administrator may notify the
Governor of any state that the designation of an area should be revised
``on the basis of air quality data, planning and control
considerations, or any other air quality-related considerations the
Administrator deems appropriate.'' The Act further provides in section
107(d)(3)(D) that even if the Administrator has not notified a state
Governor that a designation should be revised, the Governor of any
state may, on the Governor's own motion, submit a request to revise the
designation of any area, and the Administrator must approve or deny the
request.
When approving or denying a request to redesignate an area, the EPA
bases its decision on the air quality data for the area as well as the
considerations provided under section 107(d)(3)(A).\17\ In keeping with
section 107(d)(1)(A), areas that are redesignated to attainment/
unclassifiable must meet the requirements for attainment areas and thus
must meet the relevant NAAQS. In addition, the area must not contribute
to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ While CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) also lists specific
requirements for redesignations, those requirements apply to
redesignations of nonattainment areas to attainment and, therefore,
are not applicable here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For designations, the SO2 Modeling TAD indicates that it
is acceptable to use federally enforceable and in effect allowable
emission rates instead of actual emission rates. Although past actual
emissions could have been higher than those under the most recent
allowable rate, the SO2 Modeling TAD reflects the EPA's
belief that it is reasonable to account for any lower allowable limits
currently federally enforceable and in effect when determining if an
area is attaining the NAAQS. In addition, the SO2 Modeling
TAD indicates that, where an allowable emissions limit has been lowered
during the relevant three-year period (such as through the
implementation of emissions controls), the air agency may rely on the
new federally enforceable and in effect limit in demonstrating that the
modeled limit assures attainment. In this fashion, the most recent
permitted or potential to emit rate should be used along with a minimum
of the most recent three years of meteorological data.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See page 10 of the August 2016 SO2 Modeling TAD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA finds that modeling a mix of current allowable emissions
and actual emissions would be consistent with the SO2
Modeling TAD for designations if the same type of emissions is used for
each source for all three years. For instance, if a state decided to
use current federally enforceable and in effect allowables for a
facility in a modeling analysis, the state would need to use current
allowables for all three years of the analysis for that facility. The
state would not necessarily need to use current allowables for the
other sources in the analysis (i.e., actuals would be permissible for
all three years for other sources in the area). The EPA finds this kind
of analysis is sufficient for clean data determinations, which, similar
to designations, use the analysis to determine whether the area is
currently meeting the NAAQS. We also believe that this analysis can be
used for purposes of a redesignation of an area from unclassifiable to
attainment/unclassifiable, where the inquiry is also whether the area
is factually attaining the NAAQS. Such redesignations are functionally
similar to initial designations and are not subject to the requirements
of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), which require attainment to be due to
permanent and enforceable measures and which require a demonstration
that the area will maintain the NAAQS for ten years. Per the 2014
SO2 Guidance, in redesignations of nonattainment areas to
attainment, which are subject to the requirements of CAA section
107(d)(3)(E), states will be expected to use federally enforceable and
in effect allowable emissions in air quality modeling.
The EPA recognizes that its 2014 SO2 Guidance does not
on its face suggest that modeling allowable emissions or a mix of
allowable and actual emissions would be an acceptable alternative to
modeling actual emissions in the clean data determination or
redesignation of an area from unclassifiable to attainment/
unclassifiable contexts. However, the Agency considers it to have been
an oversight on its part not to have addressed this alternative
possibility in the 2014 SO2 Guidance, as the Agency clearly
has endorsed the use of both actual emissions and allowable emissions
in the SO2 Modeling TAD in general and in the recent rounds
of area designations under the SO2 NAAQS, in contexts where,
as here, the Agency is making a factual judgment about whether an area
has attained the NAAQS. Moreover, the 2014 guidance also suggests that
modeling of allowable emissions, combined with other information, could
also be used to determine whether, after the attainment deadline has
passed, areas in fact timely attained the NAAQS under CAA section 179.
Therefore, although the SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance was
silent on using allowable emissions in the clean data determination and
redesignations of an area from unclassifiable to attainment/
unclassifiable contexts, the EPA finds that it is not inconsistent with
the guidance to endorse that practice now, provided the allowables-
based modeling is conducted appropriately pursuant to the
SO2 Modeling TAD and the code of federal regulations at 40
CFR part 51, appendix W--Guideline on Air Quality Models (hereafter
referred to as ``appendix W'') and regulations governing stack heights
and dispersion techniques at 40 CFR 51.100 and 40 CFR 51.118 when
applicable.
E. What information did Missouri provide to the EPA to demonstrate that
the Jackson County area has attained the NAAQS?
On May 4, 2018, the MoDNR submitted a request asking the EPA to
determine that the nonattainment area attained the 2010 1-hr
SO2 NAAQS per the EPA's Clean Data Policy. The request
included three years of complete, quality assured, and certified
ambient air monitoring data from the 2015-2017 monitoring period; the
design value (dv) for 2015-2017 was 57 ppb. In a response letter, dated
November 13, 2018, the EPA stated that, because the request did not
include a modeling demonstration showing attainment utilizing the most
recent three years of actual emissions or a demonstration that the
monitor was located in the area of maximum concentration for the
nonattainment area, the state's request did not contain the necessary
supporting information as outlined in the EPA's 2014 SO2
Guidance. In an emailed letter dated March 1, 2019, the state provided
modeling of the most recent three years of actual emissions (2016-2018)
for the nonattainment area. However, the EPA verbally expressed concern
to the MoDNR regarding data used to derive the background concentration
in the modeling analysis.\19\ The MoDNR responded via email with an
update to its modeling analysis.\20\ On April 24,
[[Page 20900]]
2019, via email, the MoDNR submitted an explanation of its
interpretations of regulations and guidance, in particular its
interpretations of appendix W and guidance in regard to determining
background concentrations and which sources needed to be included in
the clean data determination modeling analysis. The EPA continued to
provide guidance to the MoDNR regarding background concentration
analysis and sources to include in the model. On June 19, 2019, via
email, the MoDNR submitted a revised modeling demonstration (hereafter
referred to as the Jackson County clean data determination modeling) to
support its request that the EPA determine the Jackson County area has
attained the 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQS. In the Jackson County
clean data determination modeling, the State adjusted its background
concentration and included additional sources outside of the area in
the model using actual emissions. The MoDNR submitted a correction to
its June 19, 2019 modeling files on February 26, 2020. The correction
ensured that the modeling files were reflective of the narrative
description of how the MoDNR calculated and modeled hourly emission
rates for sources that did not have Continuous Emissions Monitoring
Systems (CEMS).\21\ The EPA is proposing to determine that the Jackson
County area has attained the NAAQS based on its review of the MoDNR's
June 19, 2019, Jackson County clean data determination modeling
submittal and the February 2020 correction along with the monitored
ambient air data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Essentially, the MoDNR estimated days in 2016 and 2017 when
a primary facility in the nonattainment area (Veolia) was burning
coal in conjunction with monitored values at the design value
monitor (Troost) instead of providing the actual days when the
facility was burning coal. Additionally, the EPA had concerns with
the background concentration of 13 parts per billion as described in
the analysis and the list of sources included with actual emissions.
\20\ The MoDNR updated the background concentration analysis to
include actual days (not estimated days) that Veolia was burning
coal in 2016 and 2017.
\21\ As previously mentioned, the MoDNR submitted modeling on
February 24, 2020 to correct the modeled actual emissions at three
sources (Audubon Materials, Blue River Treatment Plant and KCPL
Northeast Station). The February 24, 2020 modeling did not change
the maximum modeled results from the June 19, 2019 modeling
submittal. The February 2020 correction modeling data is included in
the docket to this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. What information did Kansas provide to the EPA to demonstrate that
the Wyandotte County area should be redesignated from unclassifiable to
attainment/unclassifiable?
On September 17, 2015, the KDHE provided an air dispersion modeling
analysis that demonstrated that the Wyandotte County Area was in
attainment of the 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQS as part of its area
designation recommendations for the Round 2 designations
process.22 23 During the public comment period for the
proposed designations, the EPA received revised modeling from Kansas
City Board of Public Utilities (BPU) (hereinafter referred to as the
``BPU March 2016 modeling'') for the Wyandotte County area.\24\ In its
January 2017 Round 3 designations boundary recommendation submittal,
the KDHE recommended that the EPA designate the Wyandotte County area
as ``unclassifiable/attainment'' (we have already discussed the change
in classification to ``attainment/unclassifiable'' in the ``What Action
is the EPA Proposing?'' section of this document). Because the area was
already designated in Round 2, the EPA had no obligation to consider
the KDHE's recommendation for the Wyandotte County area at that time
and instead said that it would consider the KDHE's request for
redesignation in a separate action.\25\ The KDHE resubmitted the BPU
March 2016 modeling to the EPA in January 2017 as part of its
redesignation request for the Wyandotte County area. The EPA is
proposing to redesignate the Wyandotte County area based on the BPU
March 2016 modeling and the MoDNR's Jackson County area clean data
determination modeling (with the February 2020 correction). The BPU
March 2016 modeling and the MoDNR's June 19, 2019, Jackson County clean
data determination modeling (and the February 2020 correction) are
described in more detail in ``What is the EPA's Rationale for Proposing
this Action?'' section of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The modeling was performed by Trinity Consultants for the
Board of Public Utilities utilizing the December 2013 version of the
Modeling TAD.
\23\ The highest modeled concentration of SO2 was 160
[mu]g/m\3\ (61 ppb).
\24\ Trinity Consultants prepared the revised modeling BPU March
2016 modeling utilizing the December 2013 Modeling TAD.
\25\ The EPA's TSD for its Round 3 designations can be found at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/1_2_rd3-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. What is the EPA's rationale for proposing this action?
i. Jackson County, Missouri
The EPA is proposing to issue a determination of attainment for the
Jackson County area based on the area's 2016-2018 monitoring data at
the Troost monitor and the MoDNR's June 19, 2019 updated modeling
demonstration (with the February 2020 correction).\26\ The 2014
SO2 Guidance recommends that states, at a minimum, model the
most recent three years of actual emissions data and concurrent
meteorological data, for the modeling to simulate what a monitor would
observe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The EPA is utilizing the most current ambient monitoring
data at the Troost monitor to support this action. The State's
request was based on 2015-2017 data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The state modeled actual emissions for all sources inside of, and
20 kilometers (km) from, the nonattainment area.\27\ The modeled 3-year
DV in the clean data determination modeling analysis is 113.9 [mu]g/
m\3\, or 43.5 ppb, which meets the 1-hour standard of 75 ppb.\28\ The
model results satisfy the criteria for determinations of attainment
according to the EPA's guidance and policy. See section IV.b. ``Jackson
County Clean Data Modeling'' for more information regarding the EPA's
analysis of the modeling submitted by the MoDNR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The MoDNR also included KCP&L-Sibley, a source that is 50
km from the area, in the modeling at its most recent three years of
actual emissions because it is a source of SO2 emissions
that may impact concentration gradients in the area.
\28\ See section IV.b. Jackson County Clean Data Determination
for more information regarding the EPA's adjusted background
concentration value and impacts to the modeled maximum impact
results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Wyandotte County, Kansas
The unclassifiable designation for the Wyandotte County area was
based on modeling information the KDHE and the BPU provided to the EPA
in 2015 and 2016. Although both air dispersion modeling analyses
demonstrated that the Wyandotte County area would be in attainment with
the 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQS based on the emissions rates used in
the modeling, the EPA was not able to rely upon the analyses to
designate the Wyandotte County Area as attainment/unclassifiable.
In our February 16, 2016, notice of intended designations, the EPA
stated that it was not able to rely upon the September 2015 modeling
analysis provided by KDHE because: Certain emission rates included in
the model did not represent either the most recent three years of
actual emissions or the federally enforceable and in effect allowable
emission limits from sources in Missouri; a source of SO2
emissions in Missouri was excluded--Independence Power and Light (IPL)-
Blue Valley; concerns with the modeling receptor grid; and the
inclusion of a stack at the BPU-Nearman facility as a building
structure.\29\ Specifically, the emission rates used in the modeling
analysis submitted by KDHE in September 2015 for the following emission
points (EP) were at issue (e.g., State only limits): Veolia EP1, EP2,
and EP3; IPL-Missouri City EP5 and EP6; Kansas City Power and Light
(KCPL)-Sibley EP5A, EP5B and EP5C; KCPL-Hawthorn EP6 (Unit 5);
[[Page 20901]]
and IPL-Blue Valley EP3, EP4, and EP5.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See 81 FR 10563, February 16, 2016.
\30\ There are several discrepancies in reference to which
emission points (EPs) were modeled. A comparison of the EPs in the
September 2015 modeling, the BPU March 2016 modeling, the comments
submitted by BPU during the Round 2 designations process and the
EPA's Round 2 final designations TSD and MoDNR permits don't all
match. For example, the modeling protocol (appendix A) for the
September 2015 modeling indicates that EPs at IPL Blue Valley would
be included in the model but the modeling results (appendix B) don't
include those EPs. Appendix A indicates Veolia EP2 (Boilers 6 and 8)
only would be modeled, but appendix B indicates EP1 (Boiler 1A), EP2
(Boilers 6 and 8) and EP3 (Boiler 7) were modeled. Also, Hawthorn's
Unit 5 (EP6) was referred to as Unit 6 in the EPA's Round 2
designations proposal TSD. This is believed to be a typographical
error and the TSD should have referred to Unit 5 instead.
Additionally, Unit 5 (EP6) is referred to as EU0010 in Hawthorn's
2017 title V operating permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the public comment period, the EPA received revised modeling
from BPU (the ``BPU March 2016'' modeling) for the Wyandotte County
area.\31\ Although the BPU March 2016 modeling submittal expanded the
modeled receptor grid to include portions of Platte, Clay and Jackson
counties in Missouri, added IPL-Blue Valley, removed the stack as a
building structure, and included several Missouri sources at their
actual emission rates instead of State only limits, the modeling
continued to rely on emission rates for Veolia that were based on State
only limits.32 33 The BPU March 2016 modeling utilized: 2013
Actual emission data for IPL-Missouri City EP5 and EP6; and IPL-Blue
Valley EP3, EP4 and EP5; 3-years of CEMS data (2012-2014) for KCPL-
Sibley EP5A, EP5B and EP5C and KCPL-Hawthorn EP6 (Unit 5). The KDHE
resubmitted the BPU March 2016 modeling to the EPA in January 2017 as
part of its redesignation request for the Wyandotte County area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Trinity Consultants prepared the revised modeling BPU March
2016 modeling utilizing the December 2013 Modeling TAD.
\32\ The BPU March 2016 modeling indicates that Veolia EP1, EP2
and EP3 were modeled at ``federally enforceable SIP limits.''
Trinity Consultants got the limits from a 2015 state rule--10 CSR
10-6.261 Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions, but that rule was not
SIP approved when the modeling was submitted to the EPA. However, a
2013 operating permit, operating permit# OP2012-050, required EP1
and EP3 to burn natural gas with fuel oil as a back-up and limited
EP2 to burn coal, natural gas and fuel oil as a back-up. A 2016
construction permit, construction permit# 122016-09, removed fuel
oil as a back-up for EP1 and required EP2 to burn natural gas only
as well. The ``Project Description/Emissions Calculations'' section
of the construction permit states that the ``entire installation''
had not burned fuel oil since 2001. In 2018, the MoDNR issued Veolia
a revised operating permit, operating permit# OP2018-06, which
included EP3's removal of fuel-oil as a back-up, stating that the
unit was to burn natural gas exclusively.
\33\ In 2015, Missouri's rule included limits for Veolia EP1,
EP2 and E3. The State submitted 10 CSR 10-6.261 to the EPA for
approval into the SIP in October 2015, then withdrew the rule in
April 2018 and revised it, removing Veolia (and limits for other
sources) from the rule. The state resubmitted the rule for the EPA's
approval in 2019. At the time of this document, the EPA has not
acted on the State's request to approve the revised rule into the
SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As already noted, the BPU March 2016 modeling utilized emission
rates that were neither representative of the federally enforceable and
in effect emission rates nor the most recent three years of actual
emissions for Veolia. However, subsequent to the Round 2 designations,
Missouri issued air construction permit #122016-009, effective on
December 21, 2016, to Veolia limiting EP1 and EP2 to natural gas only,
removing the permitted ability for EP1 to also burn fuel oil as a back-
up and removing the permitted ability for EP2 to burn coal and fuel oil
as a back-up.34 35 A title V operating permit, permit
#OP2018-006, was issued in 2018. The title V operating permit included
a requirement that the facility burn natural gas only in EP3-removing
fuel oil as a back-up.36 37 38
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ https://dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/permits/docs/veolia-kc2016cp.pdf.
\35\ The MoDNR reviewed Veolia's combustion of coal in 2016 and
2017 for compliance with the December 2016 construction permit. The
permit effective date was December 21, 2016, however, it's unclear
from the permit if the requirement to burn natural gas only came
into effect on the effective date of the permit or the date the work
specified in the permit was complete, which was January 2018. In
addition, the MoDNR gave Veolia a one-year extension of the
compliance date with the Boiler MACT which allowed them to burn coal
until the end of January 2017. The record indicates that no coal was
burned after January of 2017.
\36\ https://dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/permits/docs/veolia-kc2018op.pdf.
\37\ It should be noted that construction permit #122016-06
indicates that fuel oil had not been burned installation wide since
2011.
\38\ As noted in the ``Connection to the Jackson County Clean
Data Modeling'' secion of this document, in the BPU 2016 modeling,
the emissions from EP3 were modeled conservatively compared to the
most recent three years of actual emissions (i.e. at a higher
emissions rate), at a rate of 0.5 lb/hr. The Jackson County clean
data determination modeling included EP3 at its actual emissions,
which corresponded to modeling rates of 0.3 lb/hr, 0.3 lb/hr, and
0.1 lb/hr for 2016, 2017, and 2018, respectively. Thus, EPA can rely
on the 2016 BPU modeling to determine that the Wyandotte County area
is meeting the NAAQS since the BPU modeling used an hourly modeled
rate greater than the hourly rate based on actual emissions from the
three most recent years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the issuance of the Veolia 2016 construction and 2018
operating permits, the emission rates used in the BPU March 2016
modeling are now conservative (i.e. overestimating the emission rates)
in relation to the federally enforceable and in effect emission rates
for that source. That is, the allowable facility-wide emissions rate
used in the BPU March 2016 modeling, based on state only limits, was
352.8 pounds per hour. With the issuance of the 2016 construction
permit and the 2018 operating permit, EP1, EP2 and EP3 are now limited
to natural gas combustion only. The estimation of the facility-wide
maximum emissions based on natural gas is 1.06 pounds per hour.\39\ In
the Jackson County clean data determination modeling, discussed in more
detail in sections IV.b and IV.c.v of this document, Veolia was modeled
using the most recent three years (2016-2018) of actual emissions which
include a mixture of EP2 burning coal on some days in 2016 and 2017 and
natural gas only in 2018. See table 5 in section IV.c.v. for a
comparison of the BPU March 2016 model emission rates and the Jackson
County clean data determination model emission rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ With the required burning of natural gas, Veolia' facility
wide potential to emit is 4.66 tons per year of SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, in the BPU March 2016 modeling, 2013 actual emissions for
IPL-Blue Valley Units EP3, EP4 and EP5 were used in each of the three
years modeled (2012-2014). These actual emissions reflect coal
combustion, and the possibility to burn fuel oil as a back-up. In 2015,
IPL-Blue Valley switched to natural gas with fuel oil as back-up.\40\
The EPA proposes to find that the BPU March 2016 modeling emissions
rates, based on coal (and the possibility to burn fuel oil as a back-
up), are either representative of actual emissions before the switch to
natural gas or conservative compared to the actual emissions from
current natural gas operations (and the ability to burn fuel oil as a
back-up) for the most recent three years of actual emissions and can
therefore be relied upon in the analysis.\41\ In the Jackson County
clean data determination modeling, discussed in more detail in sections
IV.b and IV.c.v of this document, IPL-Blue Valley was modeled using the
most recent three years (2016-2018) of actual emissions. See table 5 in
section IV.c.v. for a comparison of the BPU March 2016 model emission
rates and the Jackson County clean data determination model emission
rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ IPL-Blue Valley Station ceased coal combustion in EP5 (Unit
3) as of 4/15/2015 and in EP3 (Unit 1) and EP4 (Unit 2) as of 9/9/
2015.
\41\ MoDNR issued Title V operating permit number OP2017-27
(hereinafter referred to as ``OP2017-27'') to IPL-Blue Valley on
March 28, 2017. The permit limits the fuel to natural gas only with
fuel oil backup for EP3, EP4 and EP5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also notes that it is unlikely that IPL-Blue Valley's
actual emissions will increase significntly as the operating permit
clearly limits the fuel for EP3, EP4 and EP5 to natural gas only with
limited fuel oil backup. All of the
[[Page 20902]]
emission units in the permit that supported coal combustion (such as
coal handling equipment) have been removed from permit OP2017-27,
effectively eliminating coal combustion as a fuel option at the
facility.\42\ In addition, the basis for the non-applicability of 40
CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU in the permit is the fact that the emission
units are not coal-fired or oil-fired electric utility steam generating
units. As discussed in the Statement of Basis to OP2017-27, the
facility submitted a construction permit application in 2014 to cease
firing coal in EP5. Missouri ultimately determined that a construction
permit was not required, presumably because the project did not result
in an increase in emissions that were greater than Missouri's minor New
Source Review permitting thresholds, but the application signaled IPL's
intent to cease burning coal for EP5. With the issuance of OP2017-27,
IPL's intent to cease burning coal became memorialized in the
facility's federally enforceable title V air permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ In a letter dated December 24, 2014, the MoDNR told IPL-
Blue Valley that it recommended the coal handling equipment be
dismantled or otherwise permanently disabled upon the cease firing
of coal, such that coal cannot be fired. The installation should
report the nature and extent of the actions performed and their
date. The letter states that even if coal handling equipment was not
rendered inoperable, a construction permit would be required prior
to firing coal. The installation's coal delivery contract expires
December 31, 2014 and there are no plans to renew it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the potential to combust fuel oil as a back-up, the
source is limited to a period of less than 48-hours annually to combust
fuel oil. Additionally, although noted under a requirement for
particulate matter (10 10 CSR 10-6.405, Restriction of Particulate
Matter Emissions from Fuel Burning Equipment Used for Indirect
Heating), the permit states that because the source is limited to
burning natural gas or fuel oil with less than 1.2 percent sulfur
content, the source is in compliance with the MoDNR's particulate
matter regulation. Given how few hours the facility is permitted to
burn fuel oil, the facility when burning fuel oil may be treated as an
intermittent source that, in accordance with EPA's intermittent source
policy, need not be explicitly modeled.
Additionally, in the 2016 BPU modeling analysis IPL-Missouri City
emission rates were based on actual emissions from 2013. In September
2015, the IPL-Missouri City units ceased power generation and are in
the process of being demolished. Since the two IPL-Missouri City units
are no longer able to operate, the EPA proposes to find that the
emission rates used in BPU's modeling based on 2013 actual emissions
are conservative compared to the most recent three years of actual
emissions rates, and notes that actual emissions rates are likely to
remain zero given that the source has ceased operation.\43\ In the
Jackson County clean data determination modeling, discussed in more
detail in sections IV.b and IV.c.v of this document, IPL-Missouri City
was modeled using the most recent three years (2016-2018) of emissions
which were zero. See table 5 in section IV.c.v. for a comparison of the
BPU March 2016 model emission rates and the Jackson County clean data
determination model emission rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ The title V Operating Permit for IPL-Missouri City was
terminated on January 31, 2018. In the event IPL-Missouri were to
try and start operation, they would need to submit a major New
Source Review permit application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the EPA is proposing that because the 2016 BPU modeling
now represents the Missouri emission points--Veolia EP1, EP2, and EP3;
IPL Missouri City EP5 and EP6; KCPL Sibley EP5A, EP5B and EP5C; KCPL
Hawthorn EP6; and IPL Blue Valley EP3, EP4, and EP5--at either their
2013 actual emission rate (KCPL-Sibley and Hawthorn), a rate that is
higher than a federally enforceable and in effect facility wide maximum
emission rate or most recent three years of actual emissions, depending
on the emissions unit (Veolia), or emission rates that are higher than
the sources' most recent three years of actual emission rates (IPL-Blue
Valley and Missouri City), in addition to the Missouri June 19, 2019
clean data determination modeling (with the February 2020 correction)
clearly showing that when considering 2016-2018 actual emissions the
Wyandotte County sources are not causing or contributing to a modeled
violation of the NAAQS, it can now consider the BPU March 2016 modeling
to redesignate the Wyandotte County Area to attainment/unclassifiable.
The EPA acknowledges that the BPU March 2016 modeling was developed
using an earlier version of the Modeling TAD, however, the EPA proposes
to find that the changes at issue in the update to the TAD should not
impact reliability of the modeling.\44\ The EPA's analysis of the BPU
March 2016 modeling is provided in the ``What is the EPA's Analysis of
the Air Quality Monitoring and Modeling Data?'' section of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ The 2016 TAD update addressed receptor exclusion and
clarified that, at minimum, 3 years of meteorological data and
emissions data need to be modeled. Both these changes do not affect
the BPU modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. What is the EPA's analysis of the air quality monitoring and
modeling data?
A. Monitoring Data
According to the 2014 SO2 Guidance, to support a clean
data determination based on monitoring, the State needs to demonstrate
that the area is meeting the standard based on three consecutive
calendar years of complete and quality-assured air quality monitoring
data (consistent with 40 CFR part 58 requirements) at an air quality
monitor that is demonstrated to be in the area of maximum
concentration. The EPA has determined that three complete consecutive
calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data from the
Troost (Jackson County, Missouri) and JFK (Wyandotte County, Kansas)
monitors have been recorded in the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS), and
the data meets the requirements of appendix T to 40 CFR part 50 and 40
CFR part 58. This data suggests improved air quality in both areas. As
shown below in table 1, the 99th percentile 1-hour average (in ppb) and
3-year dv at the Troost and JFK monitors has decreased since 2013 and
do not show violations of the 2010 1-hr primary SO2 NAAQS.
The certified 3-year 2016-2018 dv for the Jackson County area is 11
ppb; the certified 3-year 2016-2018 dv for the Wyandotte County area is
7 ppb.
However, MoDNR did not submit a demonstration showing that the
Troost monitor is in the area of maximum concentration. Thus, the
monitoring data on its own is not enough to support a clean data
determination in this case, and, as such, the MoDNR submitted modeling
to support the clean data determination.
[[Page 20903]]
Table 1--99th Percentile 1-Hour Average in Parts Per Billion (ppb) and 3-Year Design Value at the Troost and JFK Monitors
[2013-2018]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016-2018
Monitor Site name 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 design value
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29-095-0034................................... Troost.......................... 156 125.2 142 9.4 18.4 6.1 11
20-209-0021................................... JFK............................. 45 55.1 37.6 9.6 5.5 6.1 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Jackson County Clean Data Modeling
As noted earlier, the 2014 SO2 Guidance states that, for
the EPA to make a clean data determination, the State may need to
submit information in addition to monitoring data if the area was
designated nonattainment based on air quality monitoring data. In June
2019, the MoDNR submitted the Jackson County clean data determination
modeling and updated the modeling information in February 2020.\45\ The
EPA reviewed the modeling data to determine consistency with the EPA's
Clean Data Policy, the 2014 SO2 Guidance, and the August
2016 SO2 Modeling TAD. The EPA reviewed the submittal to
determine if the appropriate meteorological data, background
concentration, building downwash data, source characteristics, and
emissions data were utilized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ The MoDNR's submittal included 2016-2018 emissions data.
The submittal includes tables of the sources included in the model
and the emission rates used in the model. This information is
provided in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Meteorological Data
The MoDNR elected to use the most recent three-year period (2016-
2018) of meteorological data as measured at a spatially and temporally
representative National Weather Service airport site. The MoDNR
utilized the Kansas City Downtown Airport (KC Airport), which is
located less than 1 kilometer to the north of the nonattainment area
and provides similar land-use and meteorological characteristics for
surface data, and the Topeka Regional Airport (Topeka Airport) site for
upper air data. The meteorological data from the time period of 2016-
2018 was processed using AERMET (version 18081), with the ADJ_U*
option, and paired with the emissions data as discussed below using the
AERMOD modeling system.46 47 Although appendix W and the
2014 SO2 Guidance suggest that a state use five years of
meteorological data from an NWS site, the August 2016 Modeling TAD
suggests that at a minimum a state should utilize three years of
meteorological data. Because a clean data determination for the 1-hr
SO2 NAAQS would look at monitoring data over a 3-year
timeframe, the EPA is proposing to determine that the utilization of
three years of meteorological data from these sites was sufficient for
the clean data determination modeling demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ The MoDNR used AERMOD version 18081, the most recent
version of AERMOD with ADJ_U*, which is a regulatory option for
version 18081.
\47\ See the state's modeling demonstration, provided in the
docket to this action, for model selection information (i.e.,
receptor grid selection).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Background Concentration
The MoDNR used 2016-2018 SO2 monitoring data from the
JFK air quality monitor paired with wind direction data from the KC
Airport to determine the appropriate background concentration. The
MoDNR utilized the Openair package within the R-software to plot
monitored 1-hr SO2 emissions paired with temporally matching
1-hr wind direction data. The MoDNR determined that the 180 to 260-
degree sector of the JFK monitor, represents the area that is the least
impacted by emission sources that were explicitly modeled.\48\ The
MoDNR obtained all hourly SO2 monitoring data when winds
were blowing from this sector and calculated the 99th percentile of
hourly concentrations for each year. However, the State did not use the
99th percentile of yearly maximum hourly daily concentrations in its
background sector analysis. The EPA corrected the State's background
analysis to fit the form of the 1-hr standard (e.g., 3-yr year average
of the 99th percentile of the annual maximum 1-hr daily concentration)
and determined that the sector base background would be 3.2 ppb. Table
2 provides the results from this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Given the locations/distribution of the sources that were
explicitly modeled, 180-260 is an acceptable range to ensure the
monitor is least impacted by the modeled sources. A 90-degree sector
is used to determine the area of impact on a source. Given the
location of BPU-Nearman to the NE of the JFK monitor and numerous
sources to the SE of the monitor, the 180-260 sector to determine
background is appropriate.
Table 2--JFK Monitor's 99th Percentile SO2 Concentration Within 180-260
Degrees Wind Sectors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
180-260
degrees wind
sectors 99th
Year percentile
concentration
(ppb)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016.................................................... 4.1
2017.................................................... 2.9
2018.................................................... 2.7
---------------
Average............................................. 3.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average of the three-year 99th percentiles (3.2 ppb) was
determined to be the appropriate background value. The EPA proposes to
determine that the background value of 3.2 ppb is appropriate and
comports with appendix W and the 2014 SO2 Guidance.
iii. Source Characteristics
The EPA reviewed the MoDNR's source characterization used in its
modeling demonstration, including source types, stack heights, and
stack exit temperatures and velocities. The EPA is proposing to
determine MoDNR's source characterization was consistent with the
recommendations of appendix W and the 2014 SO2 Guidance. The
State modeled all stacks at their actual stack heights, following the
2014 SO2 Guidance, which states, ``Consistent with previous
SO2 modeling guidance (U.S. EPA, 1994) and section 6.2.2 of
appendix W, for stacks with heights that are within the limits of Good
Engineering Practice (GEP), actual heights should be used in
modeling.'' \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ U.S. EPA, 1994: SO2 Guideline Document. EPA-452/
R-95-008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. Emissions Data
The MoDNR modeled the 2016-2018 SO2 emissions for every
permitted source of emissions located inside the nonattainment area and
within 20 km of the nonattainment area. The MoDNR also modeled a source
(KCPL Sibley) located within 50 km of the
[[Page 20904]]
nonattainment area because its SO2 emissions were over 1,000
tons/year.
The MoDNR characterized the emissions from the sources in the
modeling inventory in three ways: (1) Veolia burning coal or natural
gas; (2) sources with CEMS data, and (3) sources without CEMS (other
than Veolia).
For the Veolia facility, the MoDNR performed an analysis to
temporally allocate its actual emissions during the 2016 and 2017
modeling periods.\50\ The MoDNR asserted that this was necessary to
capture the effect of switching from coal to natural gas on EP2, as
required by the current operating permit (MO OP2018-006) and a 2016
construction permit (MO 122016-009). The emission inventory
questionnaire (EIQ) submitted to the MoDNR by Veolia showed that it was
still burning coal in EP2 during a few days in 2016 and 2017, with all
other days burning natural gas.\51\ Since the EIQ did not specify the
dates when the facility was still burning coal, the MoDNR contacted the
facility to obtain those dates with coal usage. The MoDNR temporalized
the coal annual emissions to hourly emissions based on those days. For
example, during 2017, EP2 operated using coal on nine days and the
MoDNR assumed coal combustion on each hour for the nine days (216
hours). The MoDNR divided the 2017 annual emissions (173.90 tons) by
216 hours and multiplied the result by 2,000 to obtain the hourly
emissions in pounds per hour (1,610.15 lbs./hour). The MoDNR then
created an hourly emission file to account for the coal emissions where
each of the 216 hours of 2017 emission year was assigned 202.88 grams
per second (grams/sec) and the remaining 8,544 hours were assigned zero
grams/sec. In addition, the remaining 8,544 hours of operation for EP2
in 2017 were modeled assuming natural gas combustion (0.30 lb/hr).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Veolia is not required to operate a CEMS.
\51\ As previously mentioned, the MoDNR reviewed Veolia's
combustion of coal in 2016 and 2017 for compliance with the December
2016 construction permit. The permit effective date was December 21,
2016, however, it's unclear from the permit if the requirement to
burn natural gas only came into effect on the effective date of the
permit or the date the work specified in the permit was complete,
which was January 2018. In addition, the MoDNR gave Veolia a one-
year extension of the compliance date with the Boiler MACT which
allowed them to burn coal until the end of January 2017. The record
indicates that no coal was burned after January of 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all sources that have CEMS installed, the MoDNR obtained the
actual hourly varying SO2 emissions from EPA's Clean Air
Market's Division (CAMD) and modeled those emissions.
For sources without CEMS data, with the exception of Veolia, the
MoDNR determined each sources' highest actual annual emissions during
years 2016, 2017 and 2018. The MoDNR used the highest annual emissions
in the AERMOD input files for years 2016-2018. The MoDNR determined the
hourly emissions for each of the modeled source facilities by dividing
its highest annual emissions by the number of actual operational hours
to determine a representative operational emission rate. The MoDNR then
used this operational hourly emission rate as the emission input for
all hours of the year for the three-year period.\52\ Thus, the State
modeled an hourly emission rate even for hours where there were no
actual operations. As explained further below, this approach likely
models slightly higher total annual emissions than the actual annual
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ During the EPA's review of modeling files submitted with
the June 19, 2019 Jackson County clean data determination submittal,
it noticed that the files did not reflect the State's narrative of
using the highest annual emissions from 2016-2018. In February 2020,
the State submitted corrected emissions files. The June 2019 and the
February 2020 emission files are available in the docket to this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is proposing to determine that the modeled source inventory
was both created and characterized in accordance with the 2014
SO2 Guidance and the 2016 SO2 Modeling TAD. The
August 2016 Modeling TAD recommends utilizing hourly CEMS data in
modeling analyses for the purpose of designations or clean data
determinations. The MoDNR has done this for sources with CEMS. The
August 2016 Modeling TAD says that in the absence of CEMS data, simply
dividing the annual emissions by the number of hours in the year
(8,760) is not an accurate representation of actual emissions for
sources that experience emissions rate variability throughout the year
and should not be used. The EPA is proposing to determine that by using
the highest annual emissions from 2016-2018 for the sources without
CEMS, other than Veolia, and then dividing that number by the number of
operational hours the hourly emissions input is acceptable. The EPA is
proposing that the MoDNR adequately assessed the 2016 and 2017 Veolia
emissions on the few days when burning coal and that the
characterization of Veolia's 2016-2018 emissions is acceptable. Also,
as mentioned above in the ``What Are the Criteria to be Redesignated
from Unclassifiable to Attainment/Unclassifiable?'' section of this
document, the EPA has determined that it is appropriate to model a mix
of allowable and actual emissions.
v. Results
The maximum modeled impact from the June 19, 2019 Jackson County
clean data determination modeling (with the February 2020 correction)
was 113.9 [mu]g/m\3\, or 43.5 ppb.\53\ The modeling scenario with the
EPA's adjusted background is 115.1 [mu]g/m\3\ or 44 ppb, which meets
the 1-hour standard of 75 ppb. The maximum modeled impact was located
to the southeast of Veolia, caused on the modeled days when coal was
combusted at Veolia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ MoDNR submitted modeling on February 24, 2020 to correct
the modeled actual emissions at threes sources (Audubon Materials,
Blue River Treatment Plant and KCPL Northeast Station). The February
24, 2020 modeling did not change the maximum modeled results from
the June 19, 2019 modeling submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes that the model results, along with monitored
values below the NAAQS at the Troost Street monitor for the same time
period, satisfies the criteria for clean data according to the EPA's
guidance. Certified and quality assured 2018 air quality monitoring
data is indicative of a substantial improvement in SO2 air
quality in the nonattainment area; the design value for 2016-2018 is 11
ppb. The MoDNR's monitoring data, technical modeling analysis and
supplemental information all support EPA's proposed determination,
consistent with its Clean Data Policy, that the nonattainment area has
clean data and warrants a determination of attainment.
C. Wyandotte County Redesignation Modeling
As previously noted, the KDHE submitted the BPU March 2016 modeling
as an appendix to its January 2017 Round 3 designations submittal.
Because the Wyandotte County area was already designated in Round 2,
the EPA had no obligation to consider the KDHE's recommendation during
Round 3 and instead stated that it would consider the KDHE's request
for redesignation in a separate action. This section describes the
EPA's review of the BPU March 2016 modeling data submitted to the EPA
by the KDHE in January 2017 and the EPA's reasoning for proposing to
determine that the Wyandotte County area is attaining the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS and to redesignate the Wyandotte County area to
attainment/unclassifiable. Also as previously noted, the BPU March 2016
modeling was completed in accordance with the December 2013 Modeling
TAD.54 55
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ A side-by-side comparison of the December 2013 and August
2016 Modeling TADs is available in the docket to this rulemaking.
The August 2016 version identifies that the Data Requirements Rule
was finalized, and that the EPA proposed to revise Appendix W, among
other changes.
\55\ The BPU March 2016 modeling was performed using AERMOD
version 15181 which was the most recent version of AERMOD when the
state initited the modeling analysis during Round 2. The EPA has
issued three updated versions of AERMOD (version 19191 is the
latest), but the model bug fixes and enhancements since the 15181
version are not expected to change the results of the modeling
conducted with AERMOD version 15181.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 20905]]
i.\.\Meteorological Data
The BPU March 2016 modeling used AERMOD's meteorological data
preprocessor AERMET (version 14134) with 2012-2014 surface
meteorological data from the KC Airport (referred to as the Charles B.
Wheeler Downtown Airport in the modeling document) and upper air
meteorological data from the NWS upper-air balloon station, located in
Topeka, Kansas. Although appendix W, the 2014 SO2 Guidance
and the December 2013 Modeling TAD (as well as the August 2016 Modeling
TAD) suggest that a state use 5 years of meteorological data from a NWS
site (or at least one year of on-site meteorological data) for SIP
development, this redesignation is not a redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment, therefore no SIP was required from the
KDHE for maintenance. The Modeling TAD indicates that for designations
a minimum of three years of meteorological data should be used.
Redesignations from unclassifiable to attainment/unclassifiable are a
factual determination of whether the area is attaining the NAAQS, much
like an initial designation. As such, the EPA believes utilization of 3
years of meteorological data from these sites is sufficient for this
analysis.
ii. Background Concentration
Upon request from the KDHE, the BPU March 2016 modeling used a 1-
hour SO2 background concentration of 13 ppb. At the time of
the BPU model's development, the MoDNR adopted an attainment plan for
the Jackson County area (subsequently withdrawn from the EPA). In the
now-withdrawn attainment SIP, the MoDNR described its background
concentration analysis which it shared with the KDHE. In its background
concentration analysis, the MoDNR obtained 2010-2012 monitoring data
from the JFK monitor. The MoDNR ran back trajectories using a HYSPLIT
model for monitored values above 10 ppb, 15 ppb, and 20 ppb. From the
back-trajectory analysis, a sector with little to no influence from
Missouri or Kansas SO2 sources was chosen to represent
background concentrations; the sector with the least source influence
was at 180-200 degrees. Once a representative sector was a chosen, the
highest monitoring values from that sector were evaluated. The 2010-
2012 fourth high hourly monitored SO2 value in the
representative sector was 13 ppb. Therefore, a SO2
concentration of 13 ppb was used as the modeled background
concentration for the MoDNR's Jackson County SO2 area
planning purposes, was shared with the KDHE, and used in the BPU March
2016 modeling. A discussion of the background concentrations used in
the Jackson County CDD modeling and the BPU March 2016 modeling is
provided in the ``Connection to the Jackson County Clean Data
Modeling'' section of this document.
The EPA proposes to determine that the background value of 13.0 ppb
is appropriate and comports with appendix W, the 2014 SO2
Guidance and the Modeling TAD.
iii. Source Characteristics
The EPA reviewed the BPU March 2016 source characterization used in
its modeling demonstration, including source types, stack heights, and
stack exit temperatures and velocities. The EPA is proposing to
determine BPU's source characterization was consistent with the
recommendations of appendix W and the 2014 SO2 Guidance. BPU
modeled all stacks at their actual stack heights, following the 2014
SO2 Guidance, which says, ``Consistent with previous
SO2 modeling guidance (U.S. EPA, 1994) and section 6.2.2 of
Appendix W, for stacks with heights that are within the limits of Good
Engineering Practice (GEP), actual heights should be used in
modeling.''
iv. Emissions Data
In the BPU March 2016 model, BPU-Nearman, KCP&L-Sibley EP5A, EP5B
and EP5C, and KCP&L-Hawthorn Unit 5 (EP6) were included using 2012-2014
CEMS data. Each of the IPL (Missouri City and Blue Valley) emission
points were modeled using their 2013 actual emissions. These 2013
actual emissions reflect coal combustion at IPL-Blue Valley and IPL-
Missouri City, and since IPL-Missouri City has shut down and IPL-Blue
Valley has switched to natural gas, the EPA proposes to find that the
modeled emissions rates based on coal is conservative compared to the
most recent three years of actual emissions from natural gas operations
and shutdown and can therefore be relied upon in the analysis.
Table 3 provides annual SO2 emissions for the major
point sources in the area. Actual emissions have been reduced in 2018
at every major source compared to the 2012-2014 timeframe used in the
BPU 2016 modeling. SO2 emissions at these major point
sources are down 83 percent from the highest emission year of 2013
(28,241 tons per year) to 2018 (4,738 tons per year). In addition, 2013
actual emissions used for modeled emissions at IPL-Blue Valley and IPL-
Missouri City are the highest annual emissions at these two sources in
the 2012-2018 timeframe. These two sources reported zero SO2
emissions in 2018. Thus, EPA finds the modeled emissions from 2012-2014
for BPU-Nearman, KCP&L-Sibley EP5A, EP5B and EP5C, KCP&L-Hawthorn EP6
(Unit 5), and the 2013 emissions assuming coal combustion for IPL-Blue
Valley and shutdown of IPL-Missouri City acceptable.
In the BPU March 2016 modeling, Veolia emission points EP1, EP2 and
EP3 were modeled at 0.50, 351.8 and 0.50 lbs/hr of SO2,
respectively. The modeled Veolia rates are conservative to the
permitted requirement to burn natural gas, and the 2016-2018 actual
emissions modeled in the Jackson County clean data determination
modeling. The EPA is proposing to determine that the emission rates
used in the BPU March 2016 modeling comport with the Modeling TAD.
Table 3--Major Individual Point Source SO2 Emissions (tons per year) in Wyandotte County, Kansas, Jackson County, Missouri and Clay County, Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veolia.................................. 6,702 7,934 7,782 7,343 25 175 1
Nearman................................. 4,612 4,928 5,333 4,763 2,439 904 1,023
Blue Valley............................. 1,295 1,487 998 229 1 0 0
Sibley.................................. 6,095 6,218 4,847 7,630 3,604 4,162 2,616
[[Page 20906]]
Hawthorn................................ 1,577 1,728 1,441 1,368 1,043 1,180 1,089
Quindaro................................ 2,758 2,905 3,684 853 27 1 8
Missouri City........................... 684 741 0 723
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
v. Connection to the Jackson County Clean Data Modeling
A background value of 13 ppb was utilized in the BPU March 2016
modeling and an adjusted background value of 3.2 ppb was used in the
Jackson County CDD modeling. Although the background concentrations
were determined using the same analysis method (i.e., sector exclusion
analysis) the numbers are significantly different. The EPA has found
this is likely due to the difference in years used in the analysis,
2012-2014 in the BPU March 2016 modeling vs. 2016-2018 in the Jackson
County CDD modeling. The 2016-2018 years reflect a significant
reduction in SO2 emissions in both the Wyandotte and Jackson
County areas since 2012. Table 4 shows the total point source
SO2 emission reductions from 2012-2018.
Table 4--Point Source SO2 Emissions (tons per year) Wyandotte County, Kansas and Jackson County, Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State County 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KS...................................... Wyandotte................. 7,401 7,860 9,038 5,634 2,481 922 1,051
MO...................................... Jackson................... 19,115 19,762 16,307 19,673 4,832 5,686 4,282
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... .......................... 26,516 27,622 25,345 25,308 7,313 6,608 5,333
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BPU March 2016 model had a receptor grid that included the
Jackson County area, as well as portions of Platte and Clay counties in
Missouri in addition to Wyandotte County, Kansas.
The BPU March 2016 modeling included all the large SO2
emitters in Missouri, except for Veolia, at their actual emissions. In
some cases, these emissions were much higher than the more recent
actual emissions used by the MoDNR in its Jackson County clean data
determination modeling. For example, the BPU March 2016 modeling
included the IPL-Missouri City emission points at their 2013 actual
emissions, however that source has since shut down and, as such, they
were not included in the Jackson County clean data determination
modeling. BPU-Nearman was included in the BPU March 2016 modeling at
its 2012-2014 CEMS rate but was included at a much lower rate, 2016-
2018 CEMS rate, in the Jackson County clean data determination
modeling.
As previously discussed in this document, during the Round 2
designations, the EPA found that because the BPU March 2016 modeling
included Veolia at emission rates that were neither federally
enforceable and in effect nor reflective of the facility's most recent
three years of actual emissions, it could not rely on the modeling to
designate the Wyandotte County area. Subsequently, Missouri issued
construction and operating permits to Veolia that limit the emission
points to burning natural gas. Therefore, the Veolia emission rates
used in the BPU March 2016 modeling are now higher than the maximum
emission rates of natural gas combustion and higher than the 2016-2018
actual emission modeled in the Jackson County clean data determination
modeling. These actual emissions included periods of time when Veolia
was still burning coal--a practice that is no longer permitted. A
comparison of the BPU March 2016 modeled emission rates and the Jackson
County clean data determination modeled emission rates is given in
table 5.
Table 5--Model Input Comparison
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson County
Model input BPU March 2016 model CDD model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AERMOD Version................ 15181................. 18081
Meteorological Data........... 2012-2014............. 2016-2018
Background concentration...... 13 ppb................ 3.2 ppb.
BPU-Nearman................... 2012-2014 CEMS........ 2016-2018 CEMS.
Veolia
EP1....................... 0.5 lb/hr............. = <0.12 lb/h.
EP2....................... 351.8 lb/hr........... = <0.30 lb/hr
\1\.
EP3....................... 0.5 lb/hr............. = <0.30 lb/hr.
IPL Missouri City
EP5....................... 2013 actual 220.4 lb/ Shutdown.
hr.
EP6....................... 2013 actual 0.1 lb/hr. Shutdown.
IPL Blue Valley
EP3....................... 2013 actual 193.4 lb/ 0.006 lb/hr.
hr.
EP4....................... 2013 actual 224.6 lb/ 0.004 lb/hr.
hr.
EP5....................... 2013 actual 340.3 lb/ 0.009 lb/hr.
hr.
KCP&L Sibley
[[Page 20907]]
EP5A...................... 2012-2014 CEMS........ 2016-2018 CEMS.
EP5B...................... 2012-2014 CEMS........ 2016-2018 CEMS.
EP5C...................... 2012-2014 CEMS........ 2016-2018 CEMS.
Hawthorn
EP6....................... 2012-2014 CEMS........ 2016-2018 CEMS.
Modeling Results.............. 49.24 ppb............. 43.47 ppb.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition to this modeled actual SO2 emissions from natural gas,
EP2 was also modeled with actual SO2 emissions for the days Boiler 8
burned coal.
With a higher background concentration, higher modeled emissions
from both Kansas and Missouri sources, the BPU March 2016 modeling
demonstrates that the Wyandotte County area is attaining the standard.
The BPU March 2016 modeling also demonstrates that the Wyandotte County
area is not contributing to a modeled violation of the NAAQS in the
nearby Jackson County area, which, as explained in III.g. ``What is the
EPA's Rationale for Proposing This Action?'', the EPA is proposing to
determine the Jackson County area is currently attaining the standard
based on Missouri's June 2019 clean data determination modeling
including the Veolia emission points at actual emissions from 2016-
2018.
vi. Results
The maximum modeled impact from the BPU March 2016 model scenario,
with the 34 [mu]g/m\3\ (13 ppb) background included, is 163 [mu]g/m\3\
or 62 ppb which complies with the 1-hour standard of 75 ppb. This
maximum modeled concentration is located to the southeast of BPU-
Nearman in Wyandotte County, Kansas. The BPU March 2016 modeling as
well as the KDHE's monitoring data for the JFK monitoring location, the
MoDNR's monitoring data for the Troost monitoring location and the
MoDNR's Jackson County clean data determination modeling support the
EPA's proposed determination that the area does not contribute to a
violation of the NAAQS in the Jackson County area (which the MoDNR has
demonstrated is monitoring and modeling attainment of the standard) and
warrants a redesignation from unclassifiable to attainment/
unclassifiable.
Note: Due to their large size, some or all modeling data files may
not be available in the docket (please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
V. When promulgated, what are the effects of this action?
A. Jackson County, Missouri
If the proposed determination is made final, the requirements for
the MoDNR to submit an attainment demonstration, a reasonable further
progress plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIP revisions
related to attainment of the 2010 1-hr primary SO2 NAAQS in
Jackson County shall be suspended until such time, if any, that the EPA
subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking in the
Federal Register, that the area has violated the 2010 1-hr primary
SO2 NAAQS. If this were to occur, the basis for the
suspension of the specific SIP requirements would no longer exist, and
the State would thereafter have to address the pertinent requirements.
If finalized, this determination of attainment would not shield the
area from other required actions, such as provisions to address
pollution transport, which could require emission reductions at sources
or other types of emission activities contributing significantly to
nonattainment in other areas or states or interfering with maintenance
in those areas. The EPA has the authority to require emissions
reductions as necessary and appropriate to deal with transported air
pollution situations. See CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D), 110(a)(2)(A), and
126.
If, after considering any comments received on this proposal, the
EPA finalizes a clean data determination for this area, the MoDNR would
need to continue to monitor and/or model air quality to verify
continued attainment. The MoDNR would be expected to continue to
operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network in the affected
area, in accordance with the EPA regulations, to verify the attainment
status of the area (see 40 CFR part 58).
This proposed clean data determination is limited to a
determination that the Jackson County area attained the 2010 1-hr
primary SO2 NAAQS as evidenced by the MoDNR's monitoring
data and modeling analysis; this proposed determination, if finalized,
would not constitute a redesignation to attainment under section
107(d)(3) of the CAA. The designation status of the Jackson County area
will remain nonattainment for the 2010 1-hr primary SO2
NAAQS until such time as the MoDNR submits an approvable redesignation
request and maintenance plan, and the EPA takes final rulemaking action
to determine that such submission meets the CAA requirements for
redesignation to attainment.
B. Wyandotte County, Kansas
If finalized, approval of the redesignation request would change
the legal designation of Wyandotte County, found at 40 CFR part 81,
from unclassifiable to attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hr
SO2 NAAQS. The KDHE's SIP obligations are unaffected by this
redesignation.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This action proposes to make a determination based on air quality
monitoring data and modeling and would, if finalized, result in the
suspension of certain Federal requirements and would not impose any
additional requirements.
With regard to the redesignation portion of this action, under the
CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment/unclassifiable is an action
that affects the air quality designation status of geographical areas
and does not impose any regulatory requirements. For these reasons,
this proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.
[[Page 20908]]
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
This action does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe
has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the action does not
have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs
on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Clean data
determination, Determination of attainment, Incorporation by reference,
Redesignation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
Dioxide.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control.
Dated: March 31, 2020.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 as set forth below:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart--AA Missouri
0
2. In Sec. 52.1343, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1343 Control strategy: Sulfur dioxide.
* * * * *
(b) Determination of attainment. EPA has determined, as of [date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], that the
Jackson County 2010 SO2 nonattainment has attained the 2010
SO2 1-hr NAAQS. This determination suspends the requirements
for this area to submit an attainment demonstration, associated
reasonably available control measures, reasonable further progress,
contingency measures, and other plan elements related to attainment of
the standards for as long as the area continues to meet the 2010
SO2 1-hr NAAQS.
PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES
0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations
0
4. In Sec. 81.317, the table titled ``Kansas--2010 Sulfur Dioxide
NAAQS [Primary]'' is amended by revising the entry ``Wyandotte County,
KS'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.317 Kansas.
* * * * *
Kansas--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS
[Primary]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation
Designated area \1\ -----------------------------------------
Date \2\ Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Wyandotte County, KS.......... [Date of publication Attainment/
of the final rule in Unclassifiable.
the Federal
Register], [Federal
Register citation of
the final rule].
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise
specified. EPA is not determining the boundaries of any area of Indian
country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in
the larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in
the designation area is not a determination that the state has
regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is April 9, 2018, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-07143 Filed 4-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
